Organised or Disorganised?

[perrymason]

I agree with that Dave. For me, it helps that I do not believe in a Canonical Five, so when looking at behaviours and actions I can narrow the scope to only the crimes which resoundingly seem character matched.

And based on that, I think he may have been so organized that he knew what he wanted to do and to take. If we assume that in every instance the killer just decided on the spot what to do, we would have a hard time explaining how he managed to do it so quickly regardless.

For example, I do not believe Kates killer had the luxury of time to choose which actions to take, I believe he only had enough time to do what he did and leave.

Best regards

[ChrisGeorge]

I agree with that Dave. For me, it helps that I do not believe in a Canonical Five, so when looking at behaviours and actions I can narrow the scope to only the crimes which resoundingly seem character matched.

And based on that, I think he may have been so organized that he knew what he wanted to do and to take. If we assume that in every instance the killer just decided on the spot what to do, we would have a hard time explaining how he managed to do it so quickly regardless.

For example, I do not believe Kates killer had the luxury of time to choose which actions to take, I believe he only had enough time to do what he did and leave.

Best regards

Hello Michael

The "organized" versus "disorganized" designations are, in my opinion, artificial categories introduced by former FBI profiler Jack Douglas. As we have discussed many times here, how far can modern profiling and the opinions of modern-day profilers or psychologists be applied to this very cold case from the late Victorian period?

Another former FBI profiler, Robert K. Ressler, is shown in one of the documentaries on the case saying that Jack the Ripper was organized "because he brought along his knife." So apparently the profilers themselves do not totally agree on the classification.

Chris

[Sam Flynn]

Another former FBI profiler, Robert K. Ressler, is shown in one of the documentaries on the case saying that Jack the Ripper was organized "because he brought along his knife."

What a remarkable insight! I suppose if he'd brought along his sandwiches as well he'd have been "ultra-organized"

PS, Chris: It was Jack Douglas, wasn't it (aka Alf Ippititimus), not Paul?

[ChrisGeorge]

What a remarkable insight! I suppose if he'd brought along his sandwiches as well he'd have been "ultra-organized"

PS, Chris: It was Jack Douglas, wasn't it (aka Alf Ippititimus), not Paul?

Thanks I have made that correction. Also am wondering that comment was made by former FBI profiler Roy Hazelwood. Think though that it was Ressler, as I recall.

Chris

[perrymason]

Hi Chris, Sam,

From the little direct study Ive done on serial killers themselves Id have to say that many to my untrained eye seem pretty organized. They plan and execute murders...even if the "plan" occurs to them while driving home and spotting a potential target...they rarely leave traceable evidence, and many hide the remains.

The only thing we know "Jack" didnt do is hide the remains,....unless locking the last victim in her room is a form of that.

Lets say for the sake of discussion, that Mary Ann, Annie and Kate were known to have been killed by the same lone killer....If that were the case, I would think a case might be made for a killer that acquired his victims the same manner each time, subdued those same victims before even using a knife, and was focussed on post mortem mutilation of the female abdomen.

Which might mean a killer with a preferred attack target and repetitive initial strategy and a focussed objective that included post mortem mutilation and organ theft. That seems "ordered" to me, in this example anyway.

Cheers.

[protohistorian]

Hi Chris, Sam,

From the little direct study Ive done on serial killers themselves Id have to say that many to my untrained eye seem pretty organized. They plan and execute murders...even if the "plan" occurs to them while driving home and spotting a potential target...they rarely leave traceable evidence, and many hide the remains.

The only thing we know "Jack" didnt do is hide the remains,....unless locking the last victim in her room is a form of that.

Lets say for the sake of discussion, that Mary Ann, Annie and Kate were known to have been killed by the same lone killer....If that were the case, I would think a case might be made for a killer that acquired his victims the same manner each time, subdued those same victims before even using a knife, and was focussed on post mortem mutilation of the female abdomen.

Which might mean a killer with a preferred attack target and repetitive initial strategy and a focussed objective that included post mortem mutilation and organ theft. That seems "ordered" to me, in this example anyway.

Cheers.

To be sure, it is ordered. The reasoning behind the organized nomenclature is it seems to be indicative of both the larger environment and actions as related to the killer. It in no way implies uncapable of organization.

[protohistorian]

So, the Ripper was an organised killer.

No, JtR left his victims exposed to be found. JtR is risk averse, does not consider the interplay between environment and crime signifigant, and therefore disorganized.

[perrymason]

I find your posts thought provoking Dave, ...its nice to have you aboard.

All the best.

[FrankO]

No, JtR left his victims exposed to be found. JtR is risk averse, does not consider the interplay between environment and crime signifigant, and therefore disorganized.

Hi Dave,

I don’t think the fact that he left his victims exposed necessarily points to disorganisation. After all, as long as the Ripper saw to it that he left the scenes without being noticed, there was a very good chance that he wouldn’t be caught at all. That was simply the way things were back in those days. Whether he left the bodies the way he did was of little consequence.

Besides, hiding the bodies would take time and it would involve extra risk. And, seeing that he risked his neck staying on the crime scene mutilating, I don't think he wanted to trade 'mutilation time' for 'hiding time', nor do I think he wanted to take risk for something that, by far, didn’t yield him as much as he got out of the mutilating.

To me, what makes JtR disorganized to a considerable extent, is the fact that he was willing to take the risk to do what he did out in the streets, where anybody could have walked into the scene at any given time.

All the best

[protohistorian]

Hi Dave,

I don’t think the fact that he left his victims exposed necessarily points to disorganisation. After all, as long as the Ripper saw to it that he left the scenes without being noticed, there was a very good chance that he wouldn’t be caught at all. That was simply the way things were back in those days. Whether he left the bodies the way he did was of little consequence.

Besides, hiding the bodies would take time and it would involve extra risk. And, seeing that he risked his neck staying on the crime scene mutilating, I don't think he wanted to trade 'mutilation time' for 'hiding time', nor do I think he wanted to take risk for something that, by far, didn’t yield him as much as he got out of the mutilating.

To me, what makes JtR disorganized to a considerable extent, is the fact that he was willing to take the risk to do what he did out in the streets, where anybody could have walked into the scene at any given time.

All the best

I agree with most of that. To display the characteristics of organized in 1888, the killer would act much more like the torso killer, making victim i.d. as hard as possible. Instead of burying he would engage in other behaviors that would reflect his understanding that being caught for murder was a fatal proposition.

[Monty]

I think this threads title is slightly misleading.

The reason being is that, in my humble and non-educated opinion, Jack was mixed. He has traits that belong in both camps.

Monty

[perrymason]

I think this threads title is slightly misleading.

The reason being is that, in my humble and non-educated opinion, Jack was mixed. He has traits that belong in both camps.

Monty

Based on a supposition that the 5 deaths in the Canon were his and his alone........I agree 100% Monty. I do think its possible to determine an answer to the question...but not with a Canonical 5.

Best regards Monty...nice to see you.

[FrankO]

Based on a supposition that the 5 deaths in the Canon were his and his alone........I agree 100% Monty. I do think its possible to determine an answer to the question...but not with a Canonical 5.

Hi Michael,

I don't agree with you there. Based on only Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes we could say that JtR was disorganized in the sense that he took huge risks doing what he did out in the streets, but that he was organized in the sense that he struck when and/or where there were few to no people about in the street and most people were at least trying to sleep, he was able to not give himself away until the moment he actually struck, that he worked very swiftly, that he seems to have used his knife in such a way that he didn’t get all covered in blood, that he seems to have kept an eye and ear on his surroundings so that he was on his way before anyone walked into the scene and that he didn’t stick out between the crime scenes and his home. And perhaps to a lesser extent, he apparently was able too keep such a low profile in between murders that, unlike many others, he wasn’t suspected.

All in all, to me that would constitute 'mixed' based on only 3 victims, allthough I'd put him a bit closer to 'disorganized' than 'organized'.

All the best,
Frank

[Monty]

All in all, to me that would constitute 'mixed' based on only 3 victims, allthough I'd put him a bit closer to 'disorganized' than 'organized'.

My stance as well Frank.

Monty

[perrymason]

Hi gents,

Frank and Monty, maybe my position isnt established properly...Im not neccesarily saying there should be a Canon with Polly, Annie and Kate. And venue choices and time allocations might have been just fine with him if he had his wits about him,...in fact its possible he might have liked the fact his acts were publically displayed. It might have been part of his goals for all we know.

I believe that if mutiple women were probably approached in the same manner, subdued in roughly the same way...before a knife is used, ... the throats of the victims are cut while they are unconscious or semi so, then to the mutilatation of the abdominal and groin area, often removing or physically taking some contents,... thats an ordered behaviour pattern being displayed. I believe the killer that everyone now calls Jack was a man who behaved like I suggest above on all of his murders.

I believe 2 key signatures are there....that he subdues the women before a knife is used, meaning that he physically engages the victim with hands or some other implement or tool,...and that he is focussed on mutilations in specific areas of the body, and perhaps organs within that same area.

If a man set out to do those things and does accomplish them, not only that, he gets out of there and home without witnesses or leaving a trace of himself.....in my mind thats Organized behaviour...despite the sites and times.

Setting of objectives, demonstrated preference to attack scenarios and commencements, specific sequenced non-varied actions resulting in a victim that is dead or dying and has bled much of her fluids out and is therefore a less messy subject to execute his experiments on.

For me personally, I see Polly and Annie being in a group together almost certainly....and seemingly in contradiction to my point above, but not......I think he was interrupted with Polly, and thats why he moved from the front of buildings to the back of them with Annie.

Cheers fellas