JTR - Cunning, Careful, or Lucky?

[curious]

Among serial killers, I would love to see a correlational analysis of IQ and number of victims before being apprehended. Of course, missing would be the ones that were never apprehended. But if a positive relationship between these two variables doesn't exist among the ones who were apprehended, there wouldn't be much support to posit that the ones who get away with it are more intelligent.

But maybe there is an association. We need data.

Some is better than none!

http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Seria...iller%20IQ.htm

It was interesting to me that people killing in anger had a higher IQ than those killing for financial gain.

Do you think the financial gain angle brings in all the muggers and druggies as well as the carefully plotted high end financial murders (which are prob pretty rare and not always caught?)

Interesting, indeed.

[GUT]

Do you think the financial gain angle brings in all the muggers and druggies as well as the carefully plotted high end financial murders (which are prob pretty rare and not always caught?)

I must say I presumed that was the reason for the difference.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I've never really understood this 'cunning' argument.

Even a burrow owl is aware that if it's going to kill something then it's a good idea to do it when no one's looking. Surely a human being can replicate the reasoning capacity of a burrow owl?!

He was probably unlikely to have been caught. Kelly indoors - would have been unlucky if someone had wandered in. Eddowes in a square where very dark and would have heard the sound of shoes on the pavement - would have been away before anyone got within distance. Stride is the odd one out in that he could easily have been caught red handed in that instance.

And, by the time people had gone in search of the police, whistles were blown, everyone ran around for a bit, it was a bit late to start a search as Jack would have been 15 minutes down the street at least and out of their grasp.

[GUT]

G'day Mac

Even a burrow owl is aware that if it's going to kill something then it's a good idea to do it when no one's looking. Surely a human being can replicate the reasoning capacity of a burrow owl?!

But that is cunning. Not clever not intelligent, but cunning.

[Bridewell]

If I assume that the same killer was responsible for MacNaghten's five victims:

I think he was lucky - killed on two occasions where there was only one avenue of escape (Chapman & Kelly), but got clean away. Either he chanced his arm and got away with it or, for some reason, he knew that the sole avenue of escape would be available (and I don't see how he can have done with any degree of certainty).

Careful too - it seems logical to conclude that he left Mitre Square at the last possible moment. There really isn't time, if the witnesses are accurate and truthful, for him to have done anything else.

Cunning? - I think that depends on how he (seemingly) persuaded his victims to trust him. That could have been cunning on his part, but equally it could have been recklessness or desperation on the part of his victims.

[Fisherman]

Careful too - it seems logical to conclude that he left Mitre Square at the last possible moment. There really isn't time, if the witnesses are accurate and truthful, for him to have done anything else.

Itīs a tempting suggestion that this was so. But keep im mind that he afforded himself the time to cut away half the apron on Eddowes.
I would think that this was the last thing he did in Mitre Square, and if he had heard somebody coming it would be an odd thing to do, instead of fleeing instantly.
To me, it seems he made the decision to abandon Eddowes with no external pressure causing it, and that he judged that he had time enough to cut himself that apron piece before he left.

Of course, he could have left the square in the last possible moment just the same. But I find it fascinating that he seemingly did so with a lot of composure and no feeling of being rushed.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

We don't know though, do we, that the cutting of the apron was the last thing he did? It could be argued, equally in my view, that he cut the section of apron away as soon as he realised that he might need it, so as to ensure that he could grab it and run at the last moment. I'm not saying that was the case, simply that it's a possibility.

[Fisherman]

We don't know though, do we, that the cutting of the apron was the last thing he did? It could be argued, equally in my view, that he cut the section of apron away as soon as he realised that he might need it, so as to ensure that he could grab it and run at the last moment. I'm not saying that was the case, simply that it's a possibility.

Yes, Colin, it could have been cut away at any stage. Myself, though, I think that the best guess is that he did it last.
The suggestion of proactivity would rest on two possible grounds: he either cut it away in advance so as to have something to wipe his hands on when he was done, or he did so to procure a makeshift bag to carry the organs in.

Now, the Ripper was a man who would reasonably have known that he would not have oceans of time to work in. I therefore donīt think that he would spend valuable time cutting himself an apron piece before he started cutting into his victim. Arguably, the latter would be something he felt a need to do, whereas cutting aprons most probably was not.

So all in all, I do not see him cutting the apron piece before cutting the victim.

But disagreeing is fine, as is pointing out that there can be no knowing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Colin, it could have been cut away at any stage. Myself, though, I think that the best guess is that he did it last.
The suggestion of proactivity would rest on two possible grounds: he either cut it away in advance so as to have something to wipe his hands on when he was done, or he did so to procure a makeshift bag to carry the organs in.

Now, the Ripper was a man who would reasonably have known that he would not have oceans of time to work in. I therefore donīt think that he would spend valuable time cutting himself an apron piece before he started cutting into his victim. Arguably, the latter would be something he felt a need to do, whereas cutting aprons most probably was not.

So all in all, I do not see him cutting the apron piece before cutting the victim.

But disagreeing is fine, as is pointing out that there can be no knowing.

The best,
Fisherman

hi fish
I agree that it was probably last thing he did but the other possible reasons could be that he wanted it to keep as a trophy or use to throw off police.
If for a trophy he may have discarded it on the way to his bolt hole if he realized it had feces on it.

if to throw off police he used it to: lead them in a different direction and or implicate it was someone who lived in the building. that it was found in a doorway has always struck me as important.

to the original point of the thread- I think he was all three pretty much equally.
And as to the cunning part (which seems to be the major point of contention here) I would allude to the fact that he must have been able obviously to act like something he was not and ruse the women into taking/going with him. And I don't think anyone who was not cunning could have pulled off the double event even if you don't believe he used the apron placement to throw off the police.

so yes, definitely cunning. Like a fox is cunning.

[Fisherman]

hi fish
I agree that it was probably last thing he did but the other possible reasons could be that he wanted it to keep as a trophy or use to throw off police.
If for a trophy he may have discarded it on the way to his bolt hole if he realized it had feces on it.

if to throw off police he used it to: lead them in a different direction and or implicate it was someone who lived in the building. that it was found in a doorway has always struck me as important.

If he wanted the apron as a trophy, I would have thought heīd take the whole thing. Why destroy it by cutting it to pieces? And why not instead take anything else that he could procure without having to cut away at it first?

The suggestion cannot be ruled out, but I personally donīt think itīs a good one. I am much more inclined to think that what we are looking at is a practical need.

As for leading the police in a different direction, the only thing that they would have concluded is that it seemed that the killer had taken an easternly route after Mitre Square.
Of course, if he could fool the police to think that he belonged to the hundreds of thousands of people living to the east, instead of letting them know that he in fact belonged to the hundreds of thousands of people living in the west, I guess he could perhaps feel a bit more relaxed.

Then again, such a thing would predispose that he made a longish extra walk into dangerous territory before heading home, something that would have carried risks with it.

I think that the sheer numbers of potential killers on both the east and the west side of London would be large enough not to have him worried anyway...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

If he wanted the apron as a trophy, I would have thought heīd take the whole thing. Why destroy it by cutting it to pieces? And why not instead take anything else that he could procure without having to cut away at it first?

The suggestion cannot be ruled out, but I personally donīt think itīs a good one. I am much more inclined to think that what we are looking at is a practical need.

As for leading the police in a different direction, the only thing that they would have concluded is that it seemed that the killer had taken an easternly route after Mitre Square.
Of course, if he could fool the police to think that he belonged to the hundreds of thousands of people living to the east, instead of letting them know that he in fact belonged to the hundreds of thousands of people living in the west, I guess he could perhaps feel a bit more relaxed.

Then again, such a thing would predispose that he made a longish extra walk into dangerous territory before heading home, something that would have carried risks with it.

I think that the sheer numbers of potential killers on both the east and the west side of London would be large enough not to have him worried anyway...

The best,
Fisherman

Ok but what about the idea to throw off police by making them think it was someone who lived in the building? As I said the fact that it was found in a doorway could be significant.

And for the life of me I can't really see any of the practical reasons.
For example, your bandage idea. He knew he would be heading immediately home and could take careof a cut there. And any blood would be seeped up by his clothes. If he cut his hand he could just stick his hand in his pocket.

And if he used it for a bandage to possibly stop a blood trail the police could follow, why would he drop it before he got home? And surely he would not drop it at his own door step where it was found?

[GUT]

G'day Abby

Ok but what about the idea to throw off police by making them think it was someone who lived in the building? As I said the fact that it was found in a doorway could be significant.

As Good an explanation as any.

And if he used it for a bandage to possibly stop a blood trail the police could follow, why would he drop it before he got home?

Maybe because he stopped bleeding, or saw a policeman and didn't want to be caught with it.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

I do wonder about the apron piece,I guess he used it an discarded it due to the crud on it but what did he use the other times?

[Paddy]

I wonder

I wonder if he may have covered her face after he had mutilated it and then kept the cloth to see a pattern of his handiwork?
Or didnt someone see blood in a trough near Goulston street? Maybe he washed his hands and used it?

Pat.............................................

[Bridewell]

I wonder if he may have covered her face after he had mutilated it and then kept the cloth to see a pattern of his handiwork?
Or didnt someone see blood in a trough near Goulston street? Maybe he washed his hands and used it?

Pat.............................................

Wasn't that the Acting City Commissioner conflating the Mitre Square and Miller's Court murders? (Speaking from memory here, so can't be certain.)