The FBI Profile of Jack the Ripper & it's usefulness

[c.d.]

Whether we think Berner Street was a good venue for a killing or not is immaterial and pretty much a moot point since a killing did take place at that spot.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

The yard was adjacent to - in fact continuous with - the Club, and at right angles to Berner Street. Whether the entrance/exit of the Club was through a side door or a front door, there was a palpable risk of the killer being detected, whether during, or after the act. Or, indeed, before the act, if Schwartz is anything to go by; even if he didn't see the murderer, his testimony makes it clear that there was quite some activity going on in Berner Street around the time of Liz's death.

So, on the contrary, it has everything to do with the degree of activity in the Club, not to mention activity in the street outside. And, owing to those factors, Dutfields Yard that night was certainly not a "useful" venue to commit premeditated murder.

I sense that we will have to disagree here, Gareth. You think the door is uninteresting, and I think the club activities are uninteresting.

I see it as a parallel to a garage adjoining a tenement house at nighttime - all the people will be in the house, and the garage will offer seclusion and lots of time to indulge in whatever activity you want to with little risk of being found out.

Once again, if we disregard the door, why on earth would the clubbers approach the yard? They would have no reason to. It would have been that dark garage, directly adjoining all that activity - but a haven of seclusion.

In all of Berner Street, there would be no place better suited for the Ripper to kill than in Dutfields Yard, as far as I can tell. No other spot had the advantages that were present there.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Whether we think Berner Street was a good venue for a killing or not is immaterial and pretty much a moot point since a killing did take place at that spot.

c.d.

Of course. But it is WHY it took place there that should interest us. Because, I think, the killer liked the idea of a secluded yard (which is was not, but how would he know that ...?)

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Whether we think Berner Street was a good venue for a killing or not is immaterial and pretty much a moot point since a killing did take place at that spot.

A quick and dirty killing, CD, very possibly impulsive if not "reactionary". You'll note that I deliberately made a point of using the words "premeditated" and "evisceration murder" in my previous posts, as I believe it's important to distinguish between probable Ripper deaths and "mundane" ones. Whether Jack was responsible or not, Stride's murder is firmly towards the "mundane" end of the spectrum.

[Sam Flynn]

I sense that we will have to disagree here, Gareth. You think the door is uninteresting, and I think the club activities are uninteresting.

So, the presence nearby of a number of potential interferers, witnesses - even captors - is uninteresting from a prospective murderer's POV? Take my advice, Fish, never become a murderer. Not that you would, of course.

[John G]

If the Hanbury Street murder went down at the break of day, then Iīd argue that it was a risker site than Dutfieldīs Yard. At around 1 o clock at night, and if we look away from the club door leading into the yard, there was arguably less of a risk that somebody would walk into or out of the yard than there was that somebody on his way to work would visit the Hanbury Street backyard and itīs loo.

A killer would, if not knowing about the club side door, make a better choice of venue picking Dutfieldīs Yard at 1 o clock, than the Hanbury Street backyard at 5.30-5.40. At least I think so!

The best,
Fisherman

I agree. In fact I wonder how risky a location Dutfield's Yard was in comparison with, say, Mitre Square. If we take into account that the latter location was patrolled regularly by two beat officers, coupled with the evidence of Lawende et al., then it seems to me that JTR would have had as little as 8 minutes to assault Eddowes, extensively mutilate her throat/neck, eviscerate her (demonstrating anatomical knowledge), remove organs, avoid getting too much blood on himself, extensively disfigure her face, cut away part of her apron, and make good his escape! I think it's reasonable to assume that the killer was something of a risk taker, particularly when you consider that Mitre Square was accessible via 3 entrances and he risked a surprise interruption at any time!

In contrast, the only tangible threat of discovery that existed in Dutfield's Yard was from the club. And how much of a threat was this? Thus, at 11:30, around an hour and half before Stride's body was discovered, most of the members left as the talk given that night had ended. Around 20-30 remained but only a handful of individuals existed or entered Dutfield's Yard up until the point that Stride's body was discovered, i.e Morris Eagle, Kate Kopelansky, Joseph Lave (who couldn't even see the door to get back in because, by this time, the lighting conditions were so appalling) and, of course, Louis Diemshitz.

I would also argue that the singing and general noise emanating from the club, rather than alarm the killer, may have, to the contrary, had the effect of reassuring him that the revelers were having such a good time that it was unlikely that he would be interrupted.

And, of course, even if he was interrupted, he had the option of either fleeing the scene or simply hiding in the pitch black darkness of Dutfield's Yard, which Diemshitz assumed was the case.

Finally, even if someone noticed Stride's body- and bear in mind Diemshitz initially though he was looking at heap of dirt- then wouldn't they just assume that she was drunk? In fact, even after much closer inspection, Diemshitz remarked to his wife: "There is a woman lying in the yard but I can't tell whether she is drunk or dead".

Best wishes,

John

[Sam Flynn]

Course-correction

New thread on the comparative "safety" of each murder site started here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8400

[c.d.]

If Stride's killer were Jack, I don' t think that it is unreasonable to think that he might have have been overconfident of his ability to deal with whatever came up based on the success of the previous murders. I can see that feeling quickly evaporating if Liz struggled at all or called out and/or something made him think a club member or members might be emerging from the club.

c.d.

[RockySullivan]

Serial killers are extremely compulsive by nature. Not that there aren't people who would rip the face off of anyone they encounter, but they aren't serial killers. They end up as mass murderers or spree killers.

Serial killers do what they do for a reason. Not a good reason, but a reason. They obey the rules of their fantasies. Which sounds like delusion, and rarely is in fact delusion. But mostly it is a lack of... not impulse control exactly, but the inability or unwillingness to resist compulsion. They "want" to do something, it turns into "need", they do it. It satisfies them.

Jack the Ripper did not kill only to procure organs. He killed because he had an elaborate fantasy in his head that he needed to recreate. The fantasy gave him pleasure or relief, acting on it... more so. The fantasy included taking organs. He did. But one of the interesting parts of this mystery is that Jack has a tough time prioritizing. Take the Eyeball Killer. Just from the name you know what his priority was. He had an elaborate fantasy, but if he could not replicate that, he would still take the eyes. The eyes were the most important part. You can tell what murder victims were his by, if nothing else, the fact that the eyes were removed.

Jack the Ripper is tough. If we accept that he killed 5 or 6 women (the C5 plus maybe Tabram) then we have some real problems figuring out what this guy was after. Was he targeting middle aged prostitutes? Maybe, except that Kelly was not middle aged, and we don't know that all of these women were working prostitutes. Women with brown hair seems like way too big a victim pool, and two victims did not have brown hair. Nor were they all the same body type. It might have been a voice thing, but we have no way of knowing that.

And if we look at the murders themselves, the problems get bigger. Any idiot can see that if a man takes the time to burrow in there and grab a uterus, thats significant. But if that was the purpose, why did he fail 3 out of 5 times? If it's important, if that's what makes it worth it, he doesn't leave that behind. And he did. And he evidently spent just as much time sawing away at the throats of these women (after they were dead) as he did getting into the abdomens. The throat cut was not just a way to kill. He kept going. And going. The throat is significant. The abdomen is significant. Facial mutilations are significant. The posing may be significant. And I can't even a little think of any other serial killer with so many primary focuses. If these women had been been alive when these things were done, that might make sense to me. It's a basic form of torture. But they were dead.

Eyeball Killer had a fantasy, but the eyeballs were the focus. For Damher, the victims body type and the desire to control his victims were the focus. For Bundy, it was victim type and sadism. Son of Sam, terrorism. For Gein, this was the only acceptable contact with women that he had. For Jack... the organs, the throat the abdomen, the face, the post mortem behavior, the rush... and too many focuses is no focus. Jack had no focus. Everything was apparently equally important, so nothing was important, and that doesn't happen. So we are clearly missing something. I mean, we are missing a lot, but the statement that the Ripper only killed to procure organs is just massively untrue. And frankly, kind of dumb.

Every time I think about this particular aspect, I become convinced that there are two killers working together, despite the fact I really don't believe that to be true.

Due to the victims knowing each other/some living on the same street/people in common...I think the Ripper was targeting women he knew. Perhaps he developed a fantasy about these specific women. But what is it about them that appealed to the ripper?

[Fisherman]

So, the presence nearby of a number of potential interferers, witnesses - even captors - is uninteresting from a prospective murderer's POV? Take my advice, Fish, never become a murderer. Not that you would, of course.

Well, pointing me out as ignorant would go some way to make me murderous, Gareth

This killer had to face that possibility in each case, please remeber that! I donīt think that he would start the procedure of killing as long as he was seen by any witnesses, and therefore I suspect that Berner Street was empty but for Liz Stride as he set the wheels in motion. I think the exact same thing applied in each case.
After that, somebody could exit a door in the stairwell of George Yard, come walking into Buckīs Row at any given time, head for the loo in the backyard of Hanbury Street, pass through Mitre Square from any of the three routes leading into it and come looking for Mary Kelly and perhaps knock on the door only to proceed to do what Bowyer did - push the coat and curtains to the side ...
Why would Dutfields Yard be in any way more risky?
There would be no coppers passing into it, as he risked in Mitre Square, no carman would come walking into it as in Buckīs Row, no concierge like Hewitt would open his door twelve feet from you etcetera. If it had not been for that door - which the killer could not foresee - it was a secluded, dark place where nobody was likely to go at one o clock in the night.

There would always be risks, but some of the risks he ran in the other spots would not be in place there.

Iīve said what I have to say, so I wonīt repeat myself any further. I think the old notion that it was an extremely risky place needs to be given some afterthought. If he did not realize that there was a club door in the yard, it could well have seemed a safe bet to get seclusion on his behalf, thatīs how I see it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

In contrast, the only tangible threat of discovery that existed in Dutfield's Yard was from the club. And how much of a threat was this?,

John

An obvious one, Iīd say. To me, much hinges on the door. If he knew that it was used by the clubbers, heīd be a fool to use the yard. If not, I fail to see why it wouold not seem an ideal place to kill and eviscerate for him.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Due to the victims knowing each other/some living on the same street/people in common...I think the Ripper was targeting women he knew. Perhaps he developed a fantasy about these specific women. But what is it about them that appealed to the ripper?

Fine question. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know that the killer knew the answer to that. In fact, I don't even know if these women appealed to him at all. He might have just had a job to do, and they were around when he had to do it. This is why I'm saying this guy was all over the place. Not in a disorganized crazy kind of way. It reminds me of my four year old niece, where everything is the best thing ever. They can't ALL be the best thing ever, but she swears they are.

[Mabuse]

It seems strange to me that people are assuming the Whitechapel Murderer is choosing places that are secluded, and are puzzled that the places at which he actually commits his crimes are not really very secluded.

We then get confused or counter-intuitive assumptions about his mental state, how delusional he might be, how intelligent, and what-not, in order to make sense of this strange contradiction, when the problem is really the assumption about his choice of sites.

Does it not seem logical to assume that he is deliberately choosing places that are right under the noses of witnesses?

Part of his M.O. IMHO is the frisson he experiences by performing these atrocities in places where he can be caught, and getting away, sometimes with minutes or even seconds to spare. He also needs the bodies to be found very quickly. This is what he's after.

At Dutfield's Yard he apparently made a mistake and was nearly caught. I think the assumption about the door is very logical; he doesn't expect people to come through the yard. He still needs to enact his fantasy of killing, mutilating and getting away right under the figurative noses of witnesses, so he is compelled to go on to do it again the same night.

As he progresses he deliberately poses his victims, skirts up, organs spilled out, private parts exposed and their humanity debased for all to see. That's his purpose. He's destroying them as humans, and he needs people to see the results. He also needs to do it in what is to him a daring and provocative manner, and escape like a phantom. The zenith of this is with Kelly. He's making a display.

He needs someone to find his display, to be horrified. That's partly why he's compelled to choose these spots.

He's not doing this to procure organs per se. That he takes body parts is souvenir collecting. He goes from abdominal organs to (apparently) removing Kelly's heart. The symbolic nature of this should be readily apparent.

He's just opportunistically taking what he can, as he goes along and becomes more extreme, it goes from small possessions of the victims to actual parts of them.

The only consideration of the sites is that they be secluded enough for him to perform his atrocities, but he absolutely needs them to be in places where the public will find and see the bodies, the awful tableau he has created. This satisfies the principle of parsimony in so far as his motivation.

He could quite easily kill in abandoned buildings, building sites, empty lots, etc. There were many such places in the area. He doesn't. This is significant because he needs the bodies to be found in the posed manner in which he leaves them, he needs the terror to spread, he wants to destroy and debase his victims, and he wants to prove he is a powerful hunter by doing it right there in places where he can be caught, but escapes.

I doubt if he's taunting the police as such, I don't believe he writes any of the letters. I think he needs to prove his superiority, however, by committing his crimes where he can possibly be interdicted, part of the power trip. Thus he has to do so in relatively public places - or as public as he can risk.

This is the answer to the conundrum of the site choice.

It's highly likely that he's aborted many more forays than he brings to completion, if you forgive the expression.

Peace.

M

[Fisherman]

It seems strange to me that people are assuming the Whitechapel Murderer is choosing places that are secluded, and are puzzled that the places at which he actually commits his crimes are not really very secluded.

We then get confused or counter-intuitive assumptions about his mental state, how delusional he might be, how intelligent, and what-not, in order to make sense of this strange contradiction, when the problem is really the assumption about his choice of sites.

Does it not seem logical to assume that he is deliberately choosing places that are right under the noses of witnesses?

Part of his M.O. IMHO is the frisson he experiences by performing these atrocities in places where he can be caught, and getting away, sometimes with minutes or even seconds to spare. He also needs the bodies to be found very quickly. This is what he's after.

At Dutfield's Yard he apparently made a mistake and was nearly caught. I think the assumption about the door is very logical; he doesn't expect people to come through the yard. He still needs to enact his fantasy of killing, mutilating and getting away right under the figurative noses of witnesses, so he is compelled to go on to do it again the same night.

As he progresses he deliberately poses his victims, skirts up, organs spilled out, private parts exposed and their humanity debased for all to see. That's his purpose. He's destroying them as humans, and he needs people to see the results. He also needs to do it in what is to him a daring and provocative manner, and escape like a phantom. The zenith of this is with Kelly. He's making a display.

He needs someone to find his display, to be horrified. That's partly why he's compelled to choose these spots.

He's not doing this to procure organs per se. That he takes body parts is souvenir collecting. He goes from abdominal organs to (apparently) removing Kelly's heart. The symbolic nature of this should be readily apparent.

He's just opportunistically taking what he can, as he goes along and becomes more extreme, it goes from small possessions of the victims to actual parts of them.

The only consideration of the sites is that they be secluded enough for him to perform his atrocities, but he absolutely needs them to be in places where the public will find and see the bodies, the awful tableau he has created. This satisfies the principle of parsimony in so far as his motivation.

He could quite easily kill in abandoned buildings, building sites, empty lots, etc. There were many such places in the area. He doesn't. This is significant because he needs the bodies to be found in the posed manner in which he leaves them, he needs the terror to spread, he wants to destroy and debase his victims, and he wants to prove he is a powerful hunter by doing it right there in places where he can be caught, but escapes.

I doubt if he's taunting the police as such, I don't believe he writes any of the letters. I think he needs to prove his superiority, however, by committing his crimes where he can possibly be interdicted, part of the power trip. Thus he has to do so in relatively public places - or as public as he can risk.

This is the answer to the conundrum of the site choice.

It's highly likely that he's aborted many more forays than he brings to completion, if you forgive the expression.

Peace.

M

Thatīs not half bad, Mabuse! So let me ask you - if he really was into a sort of communicating his perceived superiority instead of trying to satisfy an inner urge to procure organs; why would we not allow for him having been the Torso killer too?
That was a man who enjoyed sending a message about what he could do!

The suggestion as such is a bit tabooish to many people, but letīs let the cat out of the bag for a while and see what happens.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Thatīs not half bad, Mabuse! So let me ask you - if he really was into a sort of communicating his perceived superiority instead of trying to satisfy an inner urge to procure organs; why would we not allow for him having been the Torso killer too?
That was a man who enjoyed sending a message about what he could do!

The suggestion as such is a bit tabooish to many people, but letīs let the cat out of the bag for a while and see what happens.

The best,
Fisherman

Is it just me, or does it seem somehow different to leave a butchered corpse uncovered than sending a fetus down the Thames in a jar A la Moses in the basket?

Like it's two completely different sick senses of humor.