Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[GUT]

I thought Ted Bundy had a good IQ too.

[Wickerman]

Serial Killer, ex-Colonel, Russell Williams, was in charge of the Canadian Forces Base at Trenton.
I don't think his IQ is in much doubt.

Serial Killers are found at all levels of society, IQ is not a distinguishing factor.

[John Wheat]

Serial Killers are found at all levels of society, IQ is not a distinguishing factor.

To Gut and Wickerman

I agree with you. All I did was give some examples of serial killers with high IQ's there are obviously more than I listed e.g. Bundy, Russel Williams, Ian Brady, Dennis Nilson. I did put an etc at the end of my sentence.

Cheers John

[GUT]

G'day John

Wasn't meaning to critise but reinforce your point.

[Errata]

Serial Killer, ex-Colonel, Russell Williams, was in charge of the Canadian Forces Base at Trenton.
I don't think his IQ is in much doubt.

Serial Killers are found at all levels of society, IQ is not a distinguishing factor.

IQ ironically, is not a measure of intelligence. I know it says it is, but it lies. It measures a persons ability to recognize patterns, solve problems, organize, reorganize, store and retrieve information, and make associations quickly. People with high IQs are often those annoying people from college who never had to study, could bang out a paper in an hour, and pick up just about anyone at a bar. And obviously, most people are average at these skills. And average is more than enough to do just about anything they set their mind to.

So if a person with an average IQ can think of four ways to solve a problem, a person with a high IQ can think of ten.

It doesn't matter a whole lot in serial killers, because compulsion trumps intelligence every time. But people like to think of serial killers as these mad geniuses. And I think it makes them feel better, because it explains why cops don't catch them sooner, or why they didn't see it. Oh well he was super smart, of course he got away with it. But that's just not true. Sure there are very bright serial killers. Bundy actually is not one of them. He was average, but he was educated and was a fair mimic. Rifkin was, Kemper was, a few others. But the percentage of high IQ serial killers is about the same as high IQ non serial killers. The truth is that no matter what his IQ is, the serial killer always has the advantage over society. He and he alone knows what he is doing, when, and how. Cops are necessarily always several steps behind, just trying to catch a break. You don't have to be bright to not get caught. You already have a head start.

These guys as a rule are blessedly normal in the brains department. Most non serial killers just put all their brain power into other things, like getting a hole in one, or fixing up an old t-bird, or planning a wedding. An average IQ serial killer just puts his resources into being a serial killer. It's why they tend not to multi-task well. Not a rule, just a tendency. A serial killer with a high IQ is more likely to police his evidence, he is more likely to have contingency plans. He is also far more likely to recognize when something is "wrong" and abort. His ability to plan and adapt quickly obscures his motive. These guys are very hard to read until they get caught and start talking about it.

Which is where I think it applies to Jack. To bring it around again to the topic at hand.

[Michael W Richards]

Where did Phillips say that? What is the source?

"The idea has got abroad that in some way it is sought to advance medical science by human vivisection, but however likely or unlikely the theory may be, it must not too readily be assumed that the two murders of yesterday morning had the same object. Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner-street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority. He it was who examined Annie Chapman and discovered the purpose of the murder."

Evening News, Oct 1st.

[FrankO]

"He it was who examined Annie Chapman and discovered the purpose of the murder."

Evening News, Oct 1st.

It’s interesting to see it claimed that Phillips discovered the purpose of the murder, Mike, while we’re still more or less at a loss.

Cheers,
Frank

[Hunter]

Yeah, Mike, I'm very familiar with that article. Featured it in my own article about Mr. Phillips. Read it carefully. It is saying that the two murders of Sept. 30 may be by different hands. It does not suggest that neither may have been perpetrated by Chapman's killer.

[Michael W Richards]

Yeah, Mike, I'm very familiar with that article. Featured it in my own article about Mr. Phillips. Read it carefully. It is saying that the two murders of Sept. 30 may be by different hands. It does not suggest that neither may have been perpetrated by Chapman's killer.

Since Phillips found no objection with linking the Stride murder to the same hand that initially killed Polly... then Annie, as that and other quotes suggest, the differences seen in the cuts made on Catherine Eddowes would therefore exclude that killers candidacy for all 3 previous "Canonical" murders. The fact that any physician could make any kind of remark concerning the likely medically trained-level status of the killer of C1 and C2 in relation to Strides single cut is beyond me personally, but the knife used perhaps might help differentiate that one a little more definitively.

That is not to say that 2 men could not have been involved in all of those killings and alternated doing the actual cutting, just that it would seem Phillips believed that the 4th Canonical victim was cut differently than the previous women...less skillfully.

The issue of the object is also revealing, in that the organ that was successfully removed in its complete state in Mitre Square had nothing to do specifically with women. The first kills wounds suggested that killer did have that focus.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

It’s interesting to see it claimed that Phillips discovered the purpose of the murder, Mike, while we’re still more or less at a loss.

Cheers,
Frank

This gets lost in all the pushback on those comments Baxter makes Frank, but the fact that Phillips thought that the objective from the start...meaning the Motive for that murder...was to get his hands on what he eventually did, in a way should have defined the profile and characteristics of at least the killer of those 2 women. A man who is possibly training to use a knife professionally in the operating theatre, one who is doing just that... or someone that has very sound knowledge of what is where and how to get at it by non-human dissections.

That seems, even to this non-medically trained eye, a very reasonable assumption given the specific details about the cutting. Add that to the specific victimology, in that we only can say for certain that Polly and Annie were selling themselves at the time they meet their killer, then we have the beginnings of a real profile. Almoat enough for some folks to try and pretend they were such women to lure the killer....oh yeah, like was done.

Add in a simple murder and a murder without that skill and focus, and the resulting profile has drifted far from its original one.

Cheers

[FrankO]

...but the fact that Phillips thought that the objective from the start...meaning the Motive for that murder...was to get his hands on what he eventually did,...

You mean the piece of abdominal wall including the belly button, Mike?

Cheers,
Frank

[Hunter]

Since Phillips found no objection with linking the Stride murder to the same hand that initially killed Polly... then Annie, as that and other quotes suggest, the differences seen in the cuts made on Catherine Eddowes would therefore exclude that killers candidacy for all 3 previous "Canonical" murders.

The point has been made several times before but I'll make it again - just for jolly I guess - Phillips refused to offer any opinion on the Nichols murder. He only opined on the murder cases that came under his personal observation. And there's nothing to suggest that he agreed with Baxter on Stride. In fact, he made a point of how "dissimilar" the throat cuts were. There were differences in the cuts on all of the victims... All of them. The evisceration of Eddowes is far more similar to Chapman than Nichols is... So what's the point? This doesn't even make sense.

The fact that any physician could make any kind of remark concerning the likely medically trained-level status of the killer of C1 and C2 in relation to Strides single cut is beyond me personally, but the knife used perhaps might help differentiate that one a little more definitively.

What?

That is not to say that 2 men could not have been involved in all of those killings and alternated doing the actual cutting, just that it would seem Phillips believed that the 4th Canonical victim was cut differently than the previous women...less skillfully.

Again... I'll ask... Where does Bagster Phillips say this?

The issue of the object is also revealing, in that the organ that was successfully removed in its complete state in Mitre Square had nothing to do specifically with women. The first kills wounds suggested that killer did have that focus.

Nichols had no organs removed and there's no forensic evidence that her killer ever intended to do so. So what's your point? Are you so wrapped up in your ain't no Ripper agenda that you are totally blind to basic facts?

[FrankO]

- Phillips refused to offer any opinion on the Nichols murder.

Good point, Hunter. And since he didn’t give an opinion about the knife skills and anatomical knowledge of Nichols’ murderer, how can one conclude that only the murders of Nichols and Chapman constitute the profile of the Ripper in the sense that the Ripper was probably trained or educated to use the knife in the operating or dissection room and that, consequently, at least Eddowes was killed a different hand?

It’s only logical that Phillips, on the basis of Chapman’s murder, tried to rationalize the murders of Nichols and Chapman, as he – or no one for that matter – didn’t have any experience with or knowledge of the type of killer the Ripper was. It was only natural that he sought a motive behind the murders (as did coroner Baxter) that we normal people could understand. My view is that it may very well have clouded his opinion.

There were differences in the cuts on all of the victims... All of them.

As you and others have pointed out, there were differences between all of the canonical victims and there may be a number of plausible explanations for this, rather than just the one that Micheal suggests: that they were killed by different hands. One important explanation for Chapman’s possibly ‘neater’ performed mutilations may be that it was getting light and the murderer could (better) see what he was doing.

The evisceration of Eddowes is far more similar to Chapman than Nichols is...

I would add that the cut that opened Eddowes’ abdomen seems more similar to Nichols than to Chapman’s (see Tom Wescott’s dissertation here: http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...d-wounds.html).

All the best,
Frank

[c.d.]

I don't quite understand how knife cuts have now become the equivalent of fingerprints in that they are always going to be the same. Before I jump to the conclusion of a different killer, I would want to know if there are any factors that could account for the same killer using different cuts. Could it be attributable to him using a different knife, cutting from a different angle, the position of the victim as he cut, movement and struggle from the victim etc.?

Again, before I leap to the conclusion of a different killer, I would also want to know if the same killer using different cuts is unique in the annals of crime or is it fairly commonplace?

Any knife cut that kills the victim is successful be it consistent or not.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

To Gut and Wickerman

I agree with you. All I did was give some examples of serial killers with high IQ's there are obviously more than I listed e.g. Bundy, Russel Williams, Ian Brady, Dennis Nilson. I did put an etc at the end of my sentence.

Cheers John

Actually John, it was not your comment I was responding to.