Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[lynn cates]

window

Hello Mike. Thanks.

I was thinking about looking out a window and remembering a face.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Thanks.

I was thinking about looking out a window and remembering a face.

Cheers.
LC

Long coat, back to most of the surrounding houses, with a quick look option for the hallway, collar up, hat on...dawn light......might be worth the risk if he felt he didn't need all that much time,....which is what I am guessing he did. I really doubt anyone could have seen much of a face from most of those windows Lynn.

I think the valuable remembrance here is that the neighbour remembered being in the adjacent yard at a very important time in this case and hearing a woman cry softly..."no"'...followed by a thud. That gives us a Murder time, Richardson gives us a confirmation of that, and the fact that he would have had to been out of that yard before Davies enters, which then provides us with the Duration, would confirm the supposition that haste played a factor in the cuts.

I like Domino style results.

Cheers LC

[Hunter]

Thank you. Mike, for a well reasoned response.

If you're just seeking truth, then I'm on your side.

[Michael W Richards]

Thank you. Mike, for a well reasoned response.

If you're just seeking truth, then I'm on your side.

Youre quite welcome Hunter, Im glad my post was able to get across my feelings on the matter better than some others I have made.

Always been about the truth H, even if its far more mundane and much less spooky than the one that has lasted all these years. If the myth is indeed reality then Ill be happy to acquiesce,...still looking for any proof for now.

Cheers Hunter

[sepiae]

[QUOTE=Tom_Wescott;283416]You might be on to something here. One of the fascinating elements about these murders, from Tabram on, is the public display of them. In the case of Kelly, killed in her own room, her head was turned to face the window and door. He couldn't leave her outside, but he could still create a shocking display for whoever found her.


----

I'm not sure about the public display idea...

Hello, everyone, I'm sepiae, a newby here, and although this thread is a little old it seems good for being my first reply, as I've just spent the latter half of the night writing something on the topic.
I cannot open threads yet, nor can I attach, so I uploaded it here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/weog1la0iyokaw5/The%20Troubles%20with%20Modus%20operandi.pdf

Let me know in case something doesn't work. It's a little lengthy, but that happens with me. I was collecting my thoughts on it, and, hello Tom Wescott, I've kind of quoted you on one or two point, with reference. I haven't read your book yet, but am very intrigued after listening to the pod.

I don't agree with you here on this thread regarding public display. It appears that the perpetrator killed the victims near where he met them or even on the spot. With no lair [always wanted to use that word] or anything like it, he had to leave the bodies somewhere, and the most simple solution was to leave them where they died. No matter where you'd be in such a densely part of London, a victim will be found. I can't see any evidence for any arrangements for the benefit of the public eye, not even an indication. So nothing really implies that this was on the perp's mind, while everything is explained with the necessity of keeping things simple, i.e. kill, do your thing, leave.
Similarly I don't necessarily see boldness in the perp's actions in such close proximity of people; a backyard full of windows, a square. Rather I suspect this to be a sign of a compelling drive superseding caution, the demand of the drive winning over the demand of caution. I do see significance in the outdoor locations, but not as purposeful display, rather more to do with the means in this sense, or the means he thought to have at display. The alternative would be preparing a place and getting them there - difficult, complicated, both which is perhaps already not in agreement with such a drive, and also entailing its own risks, or house entering, which in the end he did - a look how it exploded. This also makes me wonder whether he could have been able to go back from there, from this excess.

Anyway, one word about the little musing of mine, the main theme is the question whether a change of MO/signature isn't just possible but actually a pressing feature - working backwards.
The idea is that an MO is something that develops, evolves, not only by means of learning [the practical side, mistakes, etc.] but also in the sense of seeking [finding to what set of details will satisfy; probably never entirely, hence the serial]. Such an evolution means change. The first murder/s not being like later ones.
Which would mean that if we see the murder of Polly Nichols as a 'complete' MO then he MUST have killed before.
It's an idea, comments are very, very welcome.

Can't see the name while in this field, about the Zodiac, there's a paragraph there, and I don't agree with the earlier assessment by the poster.
I'm replying collect, as the thread is so old

And I first need to get used to this ...

Have a great one, everybody

[sepiae]

p.s. to my own reply:

can't just write I don't agree with a previous poster about the Zodiac, should outline why not. There's a paragraph about it in that essay.
I see the core of what mattered in case of the Zodiac in publicity. Publicity being for him in the end a means to power, enacted before over a few individuals, but in the end over an entire state. I believe he discovered his own motive there, and I believe he stopped killing at that point, taking the risk was no longer necessary, all he had to do was claiming a murder as his own. If I'm right then this was a very conscious act, and the killing in itself was not the core of his drive. It wasn't compelling. It would mean that he was in full control and could therefore change his MO on demand.

[lynn cates]

face it

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Of course, even if NOT recognised, a face looking out could soon be coming down.

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

p.p.s.

One more, it's so hard to stop, isn't it, about the hypothesis that Mary Kelly's body was staged, as could be read from her face looking towards entrance or window:

could be. But also, might not be at all. One might just read it this way, because we're quite primed to do this. What would we think if the face had pointed the other way, straight upwards, or if she'd been face down?
I think more promising is to try and figure the position of the perpetrator for the main part of what he did. From how it looks on the photo there seems to be little space on the other side of the bed [from our direction]. This and the organs placed on the table indicates that the killer was situated mainly on our side of the bed, and I believe the whole position of the body supports this notion. Placing an organ and another part of the body also under the head means he had too move it. With a certain weight of the lifeless and thus not held head it should be expected that it will fall to either side. If you look at the right leg it appears that it is slightly higher [elevation of knee], although this might be an effect of angle. The whole position as it is makes the direction the face points plausible on its own account, without the need for manual positioning.
Which doesn't mean you're wrong. It still could be positioned. But also consider the alternative.

[sepiae]

Hello Lynn

thank you for welcoming me to the forum earlier on.
I hope I'm not doing too much wrong so far...

Have a great day

[Major Kong]

Jack's MO

I think it's very possible the Ripper changed his MO. This is common among serial killers. What they do not usually change is the ritualistic or signature behavior of the act. This may vary though....It is important to remember that MO is different than the "ritual" or signature. This is the fantasy element the killer is playing out that provides them with satisfaction.
In the Ripper's case I would put forward that his "signature" was the postmortem mutilations. Specifically to the face and lower body areas. I think the killing itself provided him with no satisfaction: none of the victims to my knowledge appeared to be tortured, and all them to my knowledge suffered fairly quick deaths. The postmortem mutilations(and possibly posing of the bodies??) is what drove his fantasy/ritual.

Just my two cents....
Thoughts???
-Paul

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Of course, even if NOT recognised, a face looking out could soon be coming down.

Cheers.
LC

I assume you mean that anyone with a view to that yard could at any time be coming down the stairs, not only the Hanbury residents, I agree entirely. Its risky business. Of course Im not the steely murderer type who would kill someone in a blitzkrieg attack in an open ended street either...but I believe the man who killed Annie did in fact kill Polly, which necessitates that kind of profile.

I believe that the man who killed Annie sought to remove abdominal organs after he killed her, I have no idea why, I assume something to do with his mental illness, but using that basic assumption I would submit that he must have felt that he could in fact complete those objectives very quickly and in whatever time, and light, existed.

I believe that's the reason some cuts are not as precise as others, because in the matter of haste, skill was not as evident on each and every cut...as it may have been had he been in a controlled environment with lots of time and light. Only the cuts that mattered...like the one that removes the uterus. Ive heard many people surmise that the action doesn't indicate that he knew where to find what he took away, but the evidence does indicate that the cut that excised the organ was neatly performed.

Cheers Lynn