How to sort the Ripper

[Errata]

Yes, but what didn't happen was a killer alternating between two different signatures. In other words, once Kelly started pushing vagrants in front of trains his MO was very consistent; and he certainly didn't suddenly switch to become a mutilator again! Moreover, just because drastic change is possible, in respect of the odd extreme example, doesn't mean that it's remotely likely.

True. I don't think it's super likely. I keep it as an option because I'm really just dividing things into things I'm sure of and things I'm not. I'm sure Jack is a mutilator. I'm not sure he is English. I think he likely is, but I don't know. I can't swear he wasn't also the torso killer, as unlikely as it might be. I can rule out him being a robot. I mean, this whole case is not exactly jumping with facts. We don't even have all the facts on the things we have the most facts about, which is what was done to these women. I'm trying to find an analog. Someone we can look at and say, "Well, if killer A did this, and killer B did this, then Jack probably did that as well" and have it be a close enough match for comparisons to be acceptable. Sort of like Bundy and Ridgeway, who were not identical, but close enough that if you knew one you could, to a point, predict the other. And in truth in order to do that I need more than three points of comparison, and I thought I would have them quickly. Didn't work out that way. But if I find a killer who fits my three criteria and also radically changes their MO at some point, I can't afford to throw that out. Firstly, I don't actually know for sure that Jack didn't do that. And secondly I don't have so many candidates that I can afford to ditch one this early in the sorting process.

So for the purposes of this particular inquiry, the Torso murders are in play. Not an absolute, but in play. On any other thread in this forum I would argue against the two killers being one man.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;371640]

Thirdly, as I've also pointed out, several of the Torso victims were dismembered in different ways, indicating more than one perpetrator(s), i.e. once you've developed a successful strategy for dismembering a body, why would you veer from that?

It depends on the range of different methods of the serial killer. Chikatilo for example used different methods as he was beating, stabbing, biting, raping, strangling and eating his victims.

Fourthly, although a serial killers signature can sometimes evolve, whilst remaining behaviourally and thematically consistent (Schlesinger, et al., 2010), what doesn't happen is a serial killer alternating between different signatures. In fact, I don't think there's a single precedent for this.

1888 is early in serial killer history but see the above later example. And the concepts of "signature" and "modus operandi" have been much criticized (see for instance Profiling homicide offenders: A review of assumptions and theories. An Crabbé, Stef Decoene, Hans Vertommen. Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Received 30 March 2007; received in revised form 20 December 2007; accepted 15 January 2008. Available online 4 February 2008)

However, if you combine the Torso murders with the Whitechapel murders, that is exactly what must have happened.

No, we could just define those behaviours as a continuous set of options.

Thus, the killer starts off by abducting the victims, before murdering them and dismembering the bodies. He then dumps the remains all over London, although most of the disposal sites are connected to the Thames. He also takes precautions to prevent identification, i e.by decapitating the victims and retaining the head, as well as ensuring that the victims can't be identified in other ways.

Why would he care about preventing identification? That was no issue in Whitechapel. Maybe he collected their heads as trophies. Kelly´s head was almost cut off. He took trophies from the prostitutes in Whitechapel.

He then completely abandons this strategy in favour of a radically different approach, deciding to focus his activities entirely within the Whitechapel area. Moreover, he now elects to eviscerate the victims, making no attempt to abduct them, dismember them, or conceal their identity in anyway.

Why do you think that? The torso in the new Scotland Yard building was placed there at about the same time as the double event occurred.

Finally, he abandons this new strategy and goes back to plan A, once again adopting the guise of the Torso killer!

The murder of Alice McKenzie occurred between two dismemberment cases.

And what about Mary Ann Austin? In 1901 she was attacked in her bed, as Mary Kelly probably was, and stabbed, with a "penetrating wound of the vaginal (frontal) passage extending into the abdominal cavity". This is exactly what happened with some of the earlier Whitechapel victims. She eventually succumbed to her injuries. And where was she attacked? 35 Dorset Street, Whitechapel!

I haven´t been looking into the Austin murder. Will do.

Kind regards, Pierre

[John G]

Well we also apparently have a homophobic mutilator who switched to shoving people in front of trains, and that's far more drastic an evolution that mutilation to dismemberment. For the life of me I don't know how that happened, and I understand the psychology involved in these guys really well. But if the case teaches me nothing else, it does suggest that drastic change is possible.

Yes, but what didn't happen was a killer alternating between two different signatures. In other words, once Kelly started pushing vagrants in front of trains his MO was very consistent; and he certainly didn't suddenly switch to become a mutilator again! Moreover, just because drastic change is possible, in respect of the odd extreme example, doesn't mean that it's remotely likely.

[John G]

Why are we so quick to dismiss this idea? I'm not advocating it, but it seems you've been so quick to dismiss this without some significant look into the two types of crimes. You are also suggesting there are more than one perpetrator, so now we have 3 serial killers working in consecutive time periods. See the letter below. At least one contemporary resident might disagree with you...lol

Firstly, as as I keep pointing out, there is no proof that the Torso victims were actually murdered. Secondly, dismemberment crimes, unlike JtR style murders, were not unprecedented. Thirdly, as I've also pointed out, several of the Torso victims were dismembered in different ways, indicating more than one perpetrator(s), i.e. once you've developed a successful strategy for dismembering a body, why would you veer from that? Fourthly, although a serial killers signature can sometimes evolve, whilst remaining behaviourally and thematically consistent (Schlesinger, et al., 2010), what doesn't happen is a serial killer alternating between different signatures. In fact, I don't think there's a single precedent for this.

However, if you combine the Torso murders with the Whitechapel murders, that is exactly what must have happened. Thus, the killer starts off by abducting the victims, before murdering them and dismembering the bodies. He then dumps the remains all over London, although most of the disposal sites are connected to the Thames. He also takes precautions to prevent identification, i e.by decapitating the victims and retaining the head, as well as ensuring that the victims can't be identified in other ways.

He then completely abandons this strategy in favour of a radically different approach, deciding to focus his activities entirely within the Whitechapel area. Moreover, he now elects to eviscerate the victims, making no attempt to abduct them, dismember them, or conceal their identity in anyway.

Finally, he abandons this new strategy and goes back to plan A, once again adopting the guise of the Torso killer!

The simple fact is that coincidence do occur. For instance, murdering victims by slitting their throat wasn't common in the late nineteenth century (I believe in the whole of London in 1888 there was only one other case outside of the C5) but on the night of the "Double Event" three women were murdered by this method, and there was two, maybe three, different perpetrators.

And what about Mary Ann Austin? In 1901 she was attacked in her bed, as Mary Kelly probably was, and stabbed, with a "penetrating wound of the vaginal (frontal) passage extending into the abdominal cavity". This is exactly what happened with some of the earlier Whitechapel victims. She eventually succumbed to her injuries. And where was she attacked? 35 Dorset Street, Whitechapel!

[Errata]

Texas wins. I didn't find another Ripper type, but I finally found the killer who made me exclaim out loud in horror. Not that his crimes were extra terrible, but I have a thing about eyes and ugh.

The more I read, and apparently at this point I'm just reading Murderpedia straight through, the more I come to the conclusion that the best explanation for Jack walking away from the bodies is that

a: he finished what he set out to, and having a specific goal is important here
b: most or all of his reason for killing was to accomplish that specific goal
c: the women weren't important. Their lives weren't important. Maybe they fit some requirement he had, but (and this sounds strange) it wasn't personal. It wasn't about Annie, it wasn't even about who she reminded him of or who she represented, it was about a very specific goal.

Best guess is the uterus, a need he maybe developed right before Nichols. But I really don't know.

But this wasn't about "punishing whores". Too general. Leaves too much unspecified. I mean, how do you know when you're done? And it wasn't about sex. Again, too general. Not that these things didn't float through his head, but it wasn't the driving factor. This was mostly about something very specific, like getting the uterus. And that kind of single mindedness where a person just walks away after doing it really suggests some kind of command. There was a command in his mind that he had to do this specific thing. Once accomplished, murder done, walk away.

I think the throat cuts were anger driven. There's no reason for that kind of overkill otherwise. So the throats were for him, but the rest was for another reason. And that is Mission oriented killing to a T. But that implies delusion, and there's only so much delusion he could safely have. It probably also implies an instigating factor. Something happened that started this, where a conventional sexual sadist works up to murder, I don't think Jack did. He may have worked up to mutilation, but I think he started with murder. So there's a personal aspect and a delusional aspect here. And that's rare. Delusions do not often follow the desires of the sufferer. It might be why his particulars are so rare. And it may mean that Soto is a better match to him that I initially thought. But I don't know.

I'll keep reading. I think the Germans might be able to teach me some things, so that's where I'm going next.

[Errata]

Why are we so quick to dismiss this idea? I'm not advocating it, but it seems you've been so quick to dismiss this without some significant look into the two types of crimes. You are also suggesting there are more than one perpetrator, so now we have 3 serial killers working in consecutive time periods. See the letter below. At least one contemporary resident might disagree with you...lol

Well we also apparently have a homophobic mutilator who switched to shoving people in front of trains, and that's far more drastic an evolution that mutilation to dismemberment. For the life of me I don't know how that happened, and I understand the psychology involved in these guys really well. But if the case teaches me nothing else, it does suggest that drastic change is possible.

[SuspectZero]

I think this hypothesis is highly unlikely, considering the radically different signatures (and the fact that the killer would have to keep switching between the signatures- an eviscerator who makes no attempt to conceal his victims, and a dismemberer who abducts his victims and then dumps the bodies, retaining the head to prevent identification- which makes no sense at all.) In fact, several of the Torso victims-not proved to be murders-were dismembered in different ways, suggesting that there was even more than one Torso perpetrator.

It seems your "theory", however, is predicated on the assumption that they were one and the same perpetrator so, therefore, I think it is a theory that can be safely discarded.

Why are we so quick to dismiss this idea? I'm not advocating it, but it seems you've been so quick to dismiss this without some significant look into the two types of crimes. You are also suggesting there are more than one perpetrator, so now we have 3 serial killers working in consecutive time periods. See the letter below. At least one contemporary resident might disagree with you...lol

[Abby Normal]

In the cases of Millwood & Tabram, however, there doesn't appear to be a specific purpose to those attacks. The directionless nature of the stabbings imply anger and frenzy, whereas the canonicals were disparate in execution, more controlled and methodical. Also, it's worth pointing out that the frenzied, internal rage never seems to manifest itself again after Tabram.

Believe me, I understand the time frame and geography of these murders makes it possible to link them together and view the earlier ones as part of an evolving pattern, but taken in the context of the times there's a good chance these were coincidences. When you include the Whitechapel Murders, there must have been almost 20 cases of violent, unsolved assaults on women that year, and those are only the ones that were reported. They couldn't have all been committed by the same man, could they? Even with the more unorthodox belief that the Ripper was responsible for most of them, that still leaves several other men with a propensity for violence on prostitutes. Something was in the water in 1888, and it could well be that this particularly bloody chapter in Whitechapel was what brought the Ripper out of the woodwork. Or vice-versa.

hi harry

Also, it's worth pointing out that the frenzied, internal rage never seems to manifest itself again after Tabram.

that's a good point. I think because he found that way was a rather messy and ineffeciant way of dispatching the victims, and learning that random stabbing was not really what he was after. he knew he wanted to do something to the female body with the knife, and was working it out as he went along.

Even with the more unorthodox belief that the Ripper was responsible for most of them, that still leaves several other men with a propensity for violence on prostitutes. Something was in the water in 1888, and it could well be that this particularly bloody chapter in Whitechapel was what brought the Ripper out of the woodwork. Or vice-versa.

[/QUOTE]

What was in the water in 1888 was the effects of the industrial revolution on the emerging modern society.


well, I'm not sold on Millwood being a ripper victim, but I am on Tabram. The lifted skirt to reveal the abdomen seals the deal for me.

[Harry D]

However, I think the beginnings of the sig is there, as possibly with Millwood earlier, with stabbing of private parts/abdomen and interest in what's under that skirt.

In the cases of Millwood & Tabram, however, there doesn't appear to be a specific purpose to those attacks. The directionless nature of the stabbings imply anger and frenzy, whereas the canonicals were disparate in execution, more controlled and methodical. Also, it's worth pointing out that the frenzied, internal rage never seems to manifest itself again after Tabram.

Believe me, I understand the time frame and geography of these murders makes it possible to link them together and view the earlier ones as part of an evolving pattern, but taken in the context of the times there's a good chance these were coincidences. When you include the Whitechapel Murders, there must have been almost 20 cases of violent, unsolved assaults on women that year, and those are only the ones that were reported. They couldn't have all been committed by the same man, could they? Even with the more unorthodox belief that the Ripper was responsible for most of them, that still leaves several other men with a propensity for violence on prostitutes. Something was in the water in 1888, and it could well be that this particularly bloody chapter in Whitechapel was what brought the Ripper out of the woodwork. Or vice-versa.

[John G]

Seriously? Two guys with almost the same name? That's creepy. What's creepier is that I know a set of twins named Kienan and Kelly. I'll never be in a room alone with them again.

Hardy the "no comment" guy? I have no idea why that's what brain seizes on. But yeah, I actually looked pretty hard at all the Rippers, figuring that a similar name might mean more similarities that gruesome murders. I disqualified him because sex was definitely involved and he was a body dumper. But he may have kept a piece? I think? Anyway. Still didn't tick off the boxes. It sounds easy, but apparently it's not. I'm even casually keeping track of mutilating non raping body hoarders, just in case I need to research that side of it, and it's still not a lot of names.

I wonder what would happen if I looked at women?

Yes, it also appears that Hardy was a sadistic rapist and torturer, which JtR clearly wasn't: see http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co....-ripper/crimes

There is also a documentary documentary that can be streamed:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ZSkN4cXsg

[John G]

So murder/mutilator Kelly is the same as subway pusher Kelly? That's a hell of a thing. He probably wasn't confined to just those two styles either if he had that level of rage.

Hi Errata,

Yes, it looks as though I was lead into error by the alternative first name spellings! Apparently, Kelly is Ireland's only confirmed serial killer. It appears that he started off as a stabber/mutilator- unusually he was middle-aged, 47, when he committed his first murder- and then, at the age of 54, he drastically changed his MO/signature.

In this new guise he specifically targeted tramps, which was odd as he was a tramp himself. His MO involved standing on London Underground railway platforms and pushing tramps in front of inbound trains. In fact, he even inserted himself into subsequent police investigations, providing false information, i.e. by claiming to have spoken to the victim before they "jumped", and giving the impression that they were suicidal.

See:http://www.murderuk.com/serial_kiernan_kelly.html, and

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/27/london-underground-serial-killer-kiernan-kelly-murdered-18-people-pushing-tube-tracks_n_7877630.html

[harry]

I believe the intention to kill was present before even encountering Tabram,and we do not know how that came about.She was ,like the following victims, available,and it needed nothing on her part to set him off.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

If Tabram was a ripper victim, and I think she was, I think she may have been his trigger kill. As in she did something that pissed him off. Thus the anger and frenzied stabbing.


However, I think the beginnings of the sig is there, as possibly with Millwood earlier, with stabbing of private parts/abdomen and interest in what's under that skirt.

i agree with you.

[Robert]

The Times, June 8th 1984 - spelt 'Kiernan.'

[Robert]

Not having read the book, I can't assess it. The reviews here are by no means all positive :

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1473827329/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent