Organised or Disorganised?

[Ben]

With that said, the killer(s) spent a lot of time with the victims, the opportunity was most likely present to at least make an attempt to cover up or dispose of the bodies.

I respectfully disagree, Matt.

Had the killer spent any extra time attempting to dispose of the body of Catherine Eddowes, he'd have bumped straight into PC Watkins. At Hanbury Street, he would almost certainly have been aware of a potential "ear-witness" on the other side of the dividing fence, giving him an obvious disincentive to stick around (not that the location was particularly exposed anyway), and at Buck's Row, the proximity to a stable door suggests very strongly that he did intend to dispatch her within rather than leaving her on the streets.

There's no doubt that the mutilations had a "meaning" to him, but given that lack of any obvious posing, I personally doubt that a perceived "audience" was uppermost in his mind.

Welcome to Casebook!

Ben

[DarkPassenger]

Jack went out with his knife in case the opportunity presented itself - an organized trait. He was able to decide if, when, and where he was able to pull off a killing. Organized. He killed in the streets because that's where the were. He left them there because he had to move on and lugging a dead body up the street would attract attention. He follows a disorganized pattern in his fascination with the dead body. His "ritual", if it can be called that, is his crude dissection, occasionally taking away a souvenir. I doubt if he had any elaborate plans to cover his tracks or a "double life". The ineptitude of the police, the limitations of forensic science, and the great opportunity to be anonymous in Whitechapel covered his tracks.

The Whitechapel of the day was knee-deep in prostitutes - it was the opposite of a serial killer's "trolling" ground - it was for all intents and purposes a free-for-all. He didn't need to hunt for victims.
Also, there is significant questions about whether Jack removed the organs or whether they were stolen in transit to the morgue (I thank Marriot for that suggestion by the way)

Ripper letters suggest an organized killer, one who revels in his fame and wants to add to it, even taunting the police and the public. I can't count on any of the letters to be genuinely from the real murderer, and I don't think he wrote any. I imagine he was even annoyed at them, as the publicity made his occupation more risky.

Agreed

I picture Jack as a disturbed and alienated man who had some family connections, but who lived largely on the fringes of any meaningful social relationships. He was a nobody, a slightly weird nobody, that no one cared to know. He was not tricky or clever, but had street-smarts or a basic survival instinct that kept him one step ahead. It all ended somewhere, but for "my" Jack, I believe it was alone and forgotten. He wasn't "tripped up"; he fell apart.

Agreed again!

[Sam Flynn]

The Whitechapel of the day was knee-deep in prostitutes

That's often believed to be the case, DP, but I'm not so sure that it's not just another myth - if there were as many as 1,000 prostitutes in Whitechapel I should be very surprised. Surveys conducted by the police pointed at somewhere between six and eight hundred prostitutes who lived and/or operated in Whitechapel, and this has to be seen in the context of a large geographical area, housing a population of over 90,000. Since not all Whitechapel prostitutes necessarily "worked" the streets of Whitechapel either - merely lodging there - the district was hardly knee-deep in them, and there were certainly other parts of London that were as bad, if not worse, in terms of their prostitution density.

[DVV]

Hi Sam,
that's interesting, and what about the somehow fashionable habit of "slum(m?)ing" in Whitechapel? Was Whitechapel the typical and n°1 place for that, or was it just an area among others where "sluming" was possible?

Amitiés,
David

[Ashkenaz]

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

I agree, both Kelly and Eddowes, possibly others, were also found with their legs parted. He was drawing sexual attention to the victims, as well as to his crimes. He probably got a kick out of horrifying and disgusting others- those who would find the victim.

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.

I would say he showed organised and disorganised traits in the commissioning of his crimes.

He was also someone who was prepared to take chances, I'm surprised that he was never caught.

[DVV]

Maybe the ripper was confident that he could escape or successfully face and fight any constable that would have jumped at him. At least, he had a knife in hand.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

what about the somehow fashionable habit of "slum(m?)ing" in Whitechapel? Was Whitechapel the typical and n°1 place for that, or was it just an area among others where "sluming" was possible?

Seth Koven, in his book "Slumming: Sexual and Social Politics in Victorian London", points out the lack of definition around the word "slumming", which is the first thing to note - we don't really know what "slumming" is (or, rather, it means different things to different people). The Oxford dictionary defines slumming something like "Visiting slums, especially for charitable purposes"; it defines to slum similarly, but gives the alternative definition: "To go into slums for disreputable purposes". Slummers are defined variously as those who engaged in "slumming", but also as those who actually lived in the slums themselves.

Given that rather woolly state of affairs, it's little wonder that any conclusion to the effect that Whitechapel was (or wasn't) a "n°1 place" for slumming is apt to court controversy. Suffice to say that it was not unique among urban slum districts in attracting the prurient attention of sensation-seeking middle classes (of both sexes) throughout the Victorian period. That said, the presence in Whitechapel of Toynbee Hall may have served as a magnet for the well-heeled "slummer" to frequent the area - albeit these occupied a place on the "Slummers' Scale" that was more at the philanthropic, rather than sensation-seeking, end of the spectrum.

In terms of "recreational" slumming, I have little doubt that it happened in other parts of London, too - and in other cities throughout Britain and the Western World.

[Ben]

I agree, both Kelly and Eddowes, possibly others, were also found with their legs parted. He was drawing sexual attention to the victims, as well as to his crimes.

Or they simply parted as the victim fell to the ground, or they were parted to facillitate access to the abdominal region from the front. In either scenario, it wouldn't have had anything to do with "drawing sexual attention to the victims". I'm not saying for certain that this never featured on his agenda. I'm just pointing out that there may have been more practical reasons for the "exposed" nature of the victims; reasons that probably reflected his lack of private accomodation more than anything else.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

...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?

The first point; I am at a loss to understand why you think the throats were cut unneccesarily.

The second point; I will always regret that I never saved one certain link I stumbled across some 7-8 yrs ago. It was a contemporary 19th century description of the surgical removal of a uterus where the opening up of the patient by a single slice from the pubis to the arch of the breastbone was seen to have been standard 19th century practice.

Third point; Yes, I have favoured the culprit to have been a mortuary attendant myself. One of the minuses on that avenue is that the Metropolitan region had no permanant mortuary attendants, they seem to have been corralled from a local workhouse .
However, the City of London did have a permanant staff at the mortuary.

[Ravenstone]

Organised. As much as such a label is worth anything. To be honest, too much of profiling has turned into a tick list. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Anyway, for what it is worth, he took his weapon with him, he didn't leave evidence behind. He may have ripped his victims up, but he didn't 'blitz' attack them. He talked them into going down the alley. He was capable of assuming a 'normal' appearance and conducting sufficient conversation to convince already frightened prostitutes into going somewhere where they would be undisturbed. Therefore, there must have been something about him that made them think he was worth the risk. Sure, they were desperate, but they were also frightened. Would they have gone down a quiet alley with a guy who looked like he was Jack the Ripper? I doubt it.

So - organised.

[Pippin Joan]

knee deep and slumming

Remember the hours when the murders occurred. After 11 p.m., there were fewer women on the street. The pubs were closed weren't they, unless I am mistaken on that. The only women on the street were those who were desperate for the few pennies needed for a bed, the most desperate and poor women. The back streets and alleys were emptier, and a safer place for Jack, if he kept his eye on the police patrols.

A lot is made of the practice of "slumming", to allow the possibility of Jack being a toff from the outside. Slumming was a fashion, and not something someone did to purposefully put one's self in a dangerous situation. It would not be done alone and after midnight. The safest option was the charitable works angle, but those with a sense of adventure and a taste for decadence went in pairs or groups, visiting the music halls, partying at somewhat respectable drinking and dining establishments, and visiting whorehouses. No outsider in his right mind would be trolling the back alleys at 1 a.m., looking for the most unattractive and probably disease-ridden women in London. Of course, we are talking about Jack here, who is not in his "right mind", but I still don't see him as an outsider taking that risk. The only description of a "toff" that we have is Hutchinson's, and that is hugely suspect. He wanted the police to think it was an outsider.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

I think its important to remember that a man named Frederick Charrington had led a crusade against common bawdy houses during the period we are concerned about in London, and his biographer claimed that he had personally been responsible for closing over 200 houses of ill-repute.

So even though some women might have stayed off the streets while this Jack fellow was about, some would have had no choice in the matter. Only Mary, within the Canonicals, had a room.

In terms of the thread question, I personally dont see that these 5 murders can be categorized as being committed by an organized or non-organized killer, because there is evidence within those five that meets both those terms requirements.

If Mary Kelly, for example, had been sought specifically by her killer in her room....assuming she never left it after arriving home, then that is premeditation and planning.

If the same man killed Mary Ann, then he also favoured attacks that were less well thought out and were perhaps committed randomly, as what he perceived as opportunities arose.

Best regards all

[Ben]

I agree very much with the above, Joan. Excellent post.

[Wickerman]

The concept of organization or disorganization is educated guesswork,...

Precisly so, and these classifications are extremely subjective.
All of us can be 'organized' one minute then 'disorganized' the next.
'Jack' was organized enough to gain his victims trust, able not to draw attention to himself, neither before nor after the crime. Organized enough to bring his weapon(s) with him and carry out very similar mutilations of successive victims. Organized enough to allow his victims to take him to their little corner of town, so they were within their comfort zone, before he dispatched them off.
Leaving the bodies exposed is not a disorganized trait, if, its a challenge to the authorities. There's a certain 'look what I did' about the fact he left the bodies displayed in such a way - its his way of advertizing, it has shock value.
Knowing the motive would go along way to explaining what he did and why, without knowing the true motive theorists are groping in the dark.

With that said, the killer(s) spent a lot of time with the victims,..

Thats debatable. By alot of time do you mean more than 15 minutes before attacking them? Or, do you mean he was out successive nights stalking victims waiting for the right opportunity to present itself, which luckily for many of them, it never did. He may have been out every week, we will never know how much time he spent with prospective victims.

The bodies were without question left in the open. This could be the product of circumstances, but over the course of several killings a general sense of showmanship seems to be present...

Yes, and there were plenty of abandoned or empty buildings to hide a body if he so wished, but why would he? Hiding your crime is what we do today, and we do it because today crimes can be traced, hiding a body buy's time, not so in the 19th century, it wasn't necessary.
All a killer had to do was put as many streets between him and the crime and he was essentially free and clear.

The first impression I have of the photographs and the locations of the bodies is a 'look what I did' sensation. So I would tend to lean toward the idea that the killer was displaying his work...

Spot on!

If the death of the women was the purpose of the act, then the knife wound to the neck should have sufficed. The fact that the killer took the time to disfigure or disembowel his target may imply that the act itself had meaning.

Ah, now you are getting into 'motive'.
We don't know what his motive was, but we can rest assured the motive was way beyond the simple act of killing. This killer had a need to get at those organs, these were not 'sex' based killings, the killer demonstrated a purpose. What modern theorists cannot agree on is what that purpose was.
The act of killing was just a means towards an end, it is what followed that indicates the true reason for the crimes.
Dr Phillips saw something in the removal of Eddowes kidney, he wasn't willing to elaborate though. I suspect he saw something unexpected, like destroying a watch with a hammer, then carefully picking something out with tweasers.
I have often wondered, what was Dr Phillips thinking?

[Ben]

Leaving the bodies exposed is not a disorganized trait, if, its a challenge to the authorities.

Or if he didn't have private accomodation.

I'm not too sure about the prevalance of "abandoned buildings" though. Considering the extent of homelessness in the district, the chances of any derelict building remaining "abandoned" for any length of time was incredibly slim.