Organised or Disorganised?

[Monty]

Guys,

I think he definitely wanted his victims to be found exposed and mutilated and that this was an important part of his MO

Id say thats more signature than MO. And signature is the key.

Jack, for me, is mixed though leans towards the disorganised. There is little excercise of victim control which is an organised trait. He swiftly murders and mutilates. There is no thrill in a live victim, just a need for their organs.

If he was an organised Bundy, Nilsen or Dahmer type then surely he would have sort to have that intimacey with the victims, no matter how difficult his accomodation issues were.

Again, my view, but Jack didnt attack to control then kill, he simply killed because that was his urge and his curiosity laid with the organs, not the victim.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

Whether it was intention or not, Jack's victims were bound to end up looking just a little exposed, after having had their bellies ripped open and their entrails pluck'd out. It would take a peculiar kind of psychopath to have tidied up the scene before he left, instead of beating a hasty retreat once he'd plundered their guts.

I don't suppose many people would harbour the notion that Sutcliffe, say, particularly "needed" to leave his victims exposed after having stoved in their skulls on a blasted heath. Is not such exposure not more a by-product of the venue in which such killers find it convenient to strike?

[Limehouse]

Hi Ben,

I think this killer was very different from Nilsen. Nilsen kept the bodies in his home for a few days before disposing of them. I don't think Nilsen displayed as much anger as JtR. Personally, I do not think JtR would have killed victims in his home if he had one. I believe he was preditory, and wanted expose his victims. The mutilations post stangulation or suffocation point to this.

[Ben]

Hi Limehouse,

I think he definitely wanted his victims to be found exposed and mutilated and that this was an important part of his MO

But how do we know that the outdoor exposure wasn't simply an undesirable by-product of not having private accomodation? For all we know, he may not have wanted the bodies to be discovered at all if he could avoid it. I honestly don't believe the exposure had anything to do with preference at all. If he had private accomodation, he may well have tried to dispose of the bodies in a manner similar to Dahmer or Nilsen.

[caz]

Oh and I also think he was organised enough to make sure his knife was nice and sharp whenever there was a chance that the next time he'd be using it would be to cut a vulnerable unfortunate's throat.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The fact that the killer... killed his victims where he found them (more or less)... and... within walking distance of his base... I would think Jack was a disorganised asocial serial killer.

But there are many variables to my theory. Any ideas?

Yes. One idea is not to confuse theory (no matter how tempting) with fact.

That said, I tend to agree that he probably did have his base within walking distance, but think he probably killed his victims where they led him rather than where he first encountered them.

But that's only my theory.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

I think he definitely wanted his victims to be found exposed and mutilated and that this was an important part of his MO.

I think he was organised because of his ability to work swiftly, achieve as much of his aim as possible at each location and then disappear into the dawn.

[sdreid]

I would say more to the organized side but what difference does it really make in the end? The concept is more of a profiler's affectation in my view.

[Ben]

Hi DP,

I'd argue for an essentially organised offender who made the best of the limited options available to him. For example, I don't for a moment believe it was his preference to kill and mutilate on the streets, any more than it was his preference to leave the bodies on display. I think it had more to do with his limited domestic and financial circumstances. A killer with private lodgings may well have preferred to take his victims home and dispatch them there a la Nilsen and Dahmer, but if they weren't available to "our" killer, he had to make do with the streets.

I'd apply the same logic to the issue of his "comfort zone". He probably killed his victims within walking distance of his base because he didn't have the transport (or money for transport) to take him to ripping pastures anew. This wouldn't make him inherently less organized than more modern serialists with private transport and/or accomodation.

Post-mortem mutilations are by no means a "disorganized" monopoly either. Bundy and Chikatilo both combined an organized approach to criminal activity with a penchant for mutilation.

Best regards,
Ben

[John Wheat]

I think Jack was probably a disorganised killer. On a related note does anyone have an opinion on what the psychological make up of the Torso Killer could be?

[DarkPassenger]

The fact that the killer mutilated his victims post-mortem, killed his victims where he found them (more or less), left the bodies in the open and killed in such a small area within walking distance of his base, and firmly within his comfort zone, I would think Jack was a disorganised asocial serial killer.

However, he took his murder weapon with him, suggesting on face-value an organised trait. This mixed-trait situation is by no means unusual, but I think in this case it can be explained; he needed the knife for work. This means he probably worked cutting animal cadavers up, or even humans if he worked in a morgue, without the need for specific qualifications or experience. A family butchers? Casual labour at a fishmonger, given the specifics of the mutilations (throat cut unneccesarily, body sliced open from the pubis upwards, intestines unceremoniously torn out and dumped, etc.)? A morgue attendant?

But there are many variables to my theory. Any ideas?