Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Sunny Delight]

An excellent example of the fact that serial killers do change their M.O. sometimes.

It's their "signature" that usually remains the same. That can be something ritualistic they have to go through, or perhaps the need to keep a trophy which can be anything from shoes to organs.

But an M.O is very different and it sometimes confuses the investigative authorities because they often don't consider the idea that a killer has the choice and capacity to change their M.O as they see fit.


The Thames Torso murders and the Ripper are perhaps the same killer based on adaptive and alternating M.O's.

In modern times another prime example is with regards to the murders of Lynne Weedon and Eve Stratford respectively, in London.

The M.O for the killer in each of these murders is vastly different...and yet the DNA proves conclusively that it was the same killer.

I would urge anyone who hasn't read up about the murders of Lynne and Eve, to take a look and see for yourselves .

It is quite astonishing that they were both murdered by the same man.


The argument that the Ripper was the Thames Torso killer, just taking a brief autumn break from his regular dismemberment M.O, is not so far-fetched as one might think.

Especially when we consider the evidence that suggests that at least 3 of the Canonical 5 appear to have had their heads almost removed.


The question with the Ripper is this...

What was his primary M.O... and secondary M.O... and what was his "Signature?"

The Rippers M.O was strangulation followed by throat cutting. He probably or likely developed his M.O as he progressed. As I stated above- say for instance Annie Millwood and Ada Wilson were early victims of the Ripper. He essentially botches both attacks, realises that neither were very effective so by the time he attacks Martha Tabram he has settled on stabbing and did so in a frenzied manner. With Millwood he may have been so inexperienced and it was his first attack that he panicked once he had stabbed her in the groin area. Wilson likely something similar, he goes for throat cutting but botches it and panics fleeing with neighbours in hot pursuit.

By the time of the Canocial Five the Ripper has changed to another M.O namely strangulation and then throat cutting once the victim was lowered to the ground. His M.O is by then fairly well established.

The Signature of the Ripper would be the abdominal mutilations and the raising of clothing in order to display the victim in a shocking manner. He did not do this with Stride but interruption or threat of interruption can be a reason for this. It is one of the reasons I see Alice McKenzie as a victim. The displaying of her following the attack with skirts raised is very much a Ripper signature.

[Abby Normal]

An excellent example of the fact that serial killers do change their M.O. sometimes.

It's their "signature" that usually remains the same. That can be something ritualistic they have to go through, or perhaps the need to keep a trophy which can be anything from shoes to organs.

But an M.O is very different and it sometimes confuses the investigative authorities because they often don't consider the idea that a killer has the choice and capacity to change their M.O as they see fit.


The Thames Torso murders and the Ripper are perhaps the same killer based on adaptive and alternating M.O's.

In modern times another prime example is with regards to the murders of Lynne Weedon and Eve Stratford respectively, in London.

The M.O for the killer in each of these murders is vastly different...and yet the DNA proves conclusively that it was the same killer.

I would urge anyone who hasn't read up about the murders of Lynne and Eve, to take a look and see for yourselves .

It is quite astonishing that they were both murdered by the same man.


The argument that the Ripper was the Thames Torso killer, just taking a brief autumn break from his regular dismemberment M.O, is not so far-fetched as one might think.

Especially when we consider the evidence that suggests that at least 3 of the Canonical 5 appear to have had their heads almost removed.


The question with the Ripper is this...

What was his primary M.O... and secondary M.O... and what was his "Signature?"

hi rookie

his primary (mature) mo was ruse the victim into thinking he was a customer, get them to a secluded location, strangle and or knock out to unconsciousness or death, cut throat.

primary sig is postmortem mutilation, specifically vertical gash to midsection and removal of internal and external body parts.

the torso killers primary MO is not really known , but probably involved a ruse of some sort to get them at ease or to a secluded location.

his sig was post mortem mutilation, specifically vertical gash to midsection and removal of external and internal body parts.

very similar in both cases.

and in general.. is the almost decapitation of some victims, removal of breasts, ear, nose amd removal of internal body parts all that different from dismemberment? not to me it isnt.

[Abby Normal]

I am thinking of BTK who said that he sometimes would see a woman walking down the street who he had never seen before and knew nothing about and decide on the spot I am going to kill her at some point.


Hello Frank,

Yes, he did kill her but I can't recall the time period involved.

Another interesting thing about BTK is that he killed a woman using a completely different M.O. than usual so much so that the police never ever considered that it might have been him. Even when he confessed they were still skeptical until he showed them some of her personal effects he had taken.

c.d.

he also killed a woman right down the street from where he lived, stabbed one victim instead of asphyxiating and removed a woman from her house took her to another location and then dumped her outside, when all the other victims bodies were left in their homes.

[Abby Normal]

The Rippers M.O was strangulation followed by throat cutting. He probably or likely developed his M.O as he progressed. As I stated above- say for instance Annie Millwood and Ada Wilson were early victims of the Ripper. He essentially botches both attacks, realises that neither were very effective so by the time he attacks Martha Tabram he has settled on stabbing and did so in a frenzied manner. With Millwood he may have been so inexperienced and it was his first attack that he panicked once he had stabbed her in the groin area. Wilson likely something similar, he goes for throat cutting but botches it and panics fleeing with neighbours in hot pursuit.

By the time of the Canocial Five the Ripper has changed to another M.O namely strangulation and then throat cutting once the victim was lowered to the ground. His M.O is by then fairly well established.

The Signature of the Ripper would be the abdominal mutilations and the raising of clothing in order to display the victim in a shocking manner. He did not do this with Stride but interruption or threat of interruption can be a reason for this. It is one of the reasons I see Alice McKenzie as a victim. The displaying of her following the attack with skirts raised is very much a Ripper signature.

bingo.on all counts.

[JeffHamm]

he also killed a woman right down the street from where he lived, stabbed one victim instead of asphyxiating and removed a woman from her house took her to another location and then dumped her outside, when all the other victims bodies were left in their homes.

Hi Abby,

I believe he actually transported 2 of his later victims and dumped their bodies outside. Interestingly, this change in behaviour was for the two victims, Dolores Davis and Marine Hedge, whose residences were closest to his (one being something like 6 houses away!). Vicki Wegerle was murdered in between, but she was left in her residence and she lived further away. I suspect his change in behaviour in part reflected that fact, they were too close to home, and so by transporting the bodies further away he was trying to move the focus of attention away from his own residence. It would also be why I think in those two cases he attacked them at night (suggesting he knew he was going to move the bodies), while many of his other victims were attacked during daylight hours (suggesting he knew he didn't have to move the bodies).

While that could be something idiosyncratic to Rader (and my above idea about his reasons could also just be wrong of course), I've always wondered if there is a pattern there, and that other series where the murders tend to be victims in their residences, but in some cases the bodies get transported, are those that get transported generally closer to the areas associated with the offender than the locations where bodies are left at the primary crime scene? If there were such a pattern, then that becomes information that could be incorporated into the spatial analysis routines, which as you know, I have an interest in.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I believe he actually transported 2 of his later victims and dumped their bodies outside. Interestingly, this change in behaviour was for the two victims, Dolores Davis and Marine Hedge, whose residences were closest to his (one being something like 6 houses away!). Vicki Wegerle was murdered in between, but she was left in her residence and she lived further away. I suspect his change in behaviour in part reflected that fact, they were too close to home, and so by transporting the bodies further away he was trying to move the focus of attention away from his own residence. It would also be why I think in those two cases he attacked them at night (suggesting he knew he was going to move the bodies), while many of his other victims were attacked during daylight hours (suggesting he knew he didn't have to move the bodies).

While that could be something idiosyncratic to Rader (and my above idea about his reasons could also just be wrong of course), I've always wondered if there is a pattern there, and that other series where the murders tend to be victims in their residences, but in some cases the bodies get transported, are those that get transported generally closer to the areas associated with the offender than the locations where bodies are left at the primary crime scene? If there were such a pattern, then that becomes information that could be incorporated into the spatial analysis routines, which as you know, I have an interest in.

- Jeff

thats a great observation and question jeff! it would be interesting to know if that is actually why he removed these two victims from their house and dumped elsewhere. i know he did extensive interviews after he was caught i wonder if he was ever asked or answered that question?

[JeffHamm]

thats a great observation and question jeff! it would be interesting to know if that is actually why he removed these two victims from their house and dumped elsewhere. i know he did extensive interviews after he was caught i wonder if he was ever asked or answered that question?

I don't know, but I would be surprised if he wasn't asked for his reasons. Whether or not his answer would be truthful is anybody's guess, of course as serial offenders are not known for their honesty after all. I don't recall ever seeing an interview where it comes up, but that doesn't mean it hasn't. There's a fair number of things on the web about him, so perhaps in one of them someone covers this? A lot of them, though, tend to re-hash the same bits.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Even if we discount Paul, that still leaves 6 "ghosts" in the Nichols case.

PC Thain saw a couple men "down Brady-Street shortly before I was called by Neale." Mulshaw was told of the murder by an unknown man. Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row around 3:30am. An unknown man passed by shortly after the body was found.

None of them came forward and talked to the police.

Which of these people witnessed the victim alive, and which of those witnessed the victim being assaulted?

The non-identification of Pipeman by the police, requires imagination. Whatever is imagined, is required to be accepted as though it were evidence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

yes he left her in frustration at some point near the gateway, and returned in anger and killed her. when he was returning is when schwartz saw him.

You will have to weave Parcelman in and out of this story.

[GBinOz]

You will have to weave Parcelman in and out of this story.

The critical much avoided question - where is Parcelman?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You will have to weave Parcelman in and out of this story.

After Smith passes, Stride and Parcelman leave. Stride returns alone to be killed at around 12.45. Where is the problem? Understandably he doesn’t want to come forward as he was with the victim near the end.

[The Rookie Detective]

The critical much avoided question - where is Parcelman?

Parcelman may have been Lave.

[Abby Normal]

You will have to weave Parcelman in and out of this story.

imho parcelman was probably peaked cap man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which of these people witnessed the victim alive, and which of those witnessed the victim being assaulted?

The non-identification of Pipeman by the police, requires imagination. Whatever is imagined, is required to be accepted as though it were evidence.

Everything that we don’t know requires imagination therefore we’re all left doing a hefty amount of speculating. The non-identification of Pipeman means that he was never identified. We should assume no more. He was never identified…so what? The Zodiac Killer has never been identified but most people accept that he existed. The ripper hasn’t been identified but he existed. As it appears that Pipeman wasn’t identified why is that suspicious? We certainly should assume ‘suspicious’ when there are more reasonable possible explanations.

You appear to believe that because no one heard the incident it didn’t occur. Is that logical? Is that reasonable? I’d say that it’s not even in the same town as logical or reasonable. The problem is that one side of this debate accepts that normal things happen - things occur without being seen, things occur that no one hears, witnesses generally tell the truth as they see it, some people avoid contact with the police at all costs, some people disappear and aren’t found. Yet on the other we have those that think that all of the above equate to something sinister. We keep arguing over a bog standard murder. A man cut a woman’s throat. We just don’t know who it was. There were no false witnesses. No one was pretending to be someone else. We should leave aside all fanciful movie script nonsense once and for all. Why anyone finds Berner Street mysterious is beyond me. It’s simple stuff except that, for obvious reasons, we can’t produce a definitive second by second account.

Stride was killed in Dutfield’s Yard. More than likely by BSMan though it’s not impossible that someone else did it. Was the killer the ripper? Maybe, maybe not. Schwartz saw an incident. No one else saw or heard it. Diemschitz found the body at around 1.00.

That’s what happened.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

After Smith passes, Stride and Parcelman leave. Stride returns alone to be killed at around 12.45. Where is the problem? Understandably he doesn’t want to come forward as he was with the victim near the end.

The problem is thinking of these people as chess pieces.

If the two leave the area together, they must have left with a purpose. What purpose has Stride returning in 5 minutes? Remember, no money is found on her person. Along with their purpose in leaving is where did the two go? Commercial Rd to buy a flower? She already has one. There are no known witnesses to Parcelman, except by Smith.

The next problem is why Strides returns to stand in the gateway. What for? She can't be waiting for someone, if she has left the area less than 10 minutes ago with someone else. So, what's her purpose in standing at the gateway? How long does she stand in the gateway, unseen? Is this 'activity' something she had done previously or was this the first time she ever done so?

What on earth could she have said or done to cause a man to deeply cut her throat? Turned down paid sex in an area swarming with prostitutes?

All these questions require imagining some scenario for which we have zero evidence.