Organised or Disorganised?

[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

[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.

[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

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

All the best.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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

[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]

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

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

[amarti9]

I would like to believe that we are dealing with an organized killer in a sense that after the first killing, JTR knew the risk that came with a community and police force in uproar and on high alert.

JTR knew that people were looking for him/her so they had to pre-plan ahead of time. If we take letters such as the Dear Boss letter seriously, then we have to take into account that JTR telegraphed what he/she was going to do his/her's next victim. This implies premeditation and planning.

1. When and where do I kill?
2. How do slip away undetected?
3. How do I do the killings as quickly and quietly as possible(slashing of the throats)?
4. What day or night should I carry out the attack?

Im on the side of organized on this one.

[Jon Guy]

the killer has enough understanding of his enviroment and his actions to take action to avoid detection. Therefore he would be an organized killer.

So, the Ripper was an organised killer.

Absolutely correct. I suspect at least one of the c5 to be a different person, additionally, I suspect an earlier array of less violent crime. The situation is complicated bt the large number of people who lived in the area. I also expect that as details were reported widely, there would be a certain number of people who would take advantage of that information and copycat.

Hi Dave,

The notion that locals would make use of the Ripper lore is evidenced in the papers throughout the series by men producing knives on women, and by the volume of hoax letters that arrived....I agree entirely. We may even have that to deal with within the Canonical Group...and for my money Alice McKenzie was an "hommage".

All the best.

[protohistorian]

Hi all,

When it comes to even be able to guess how to categorize the Ripper as either Org or DOrg, I would guess you need to know for certain whom he actually killed.

For example, if the Ripper killed the 5 Canonicals, then we can see both characteristics exhibited in that series. If however the Ripper killed only the women who were killed outdoors, attacked and subdued his victims before cutting them at all, and performed mutilations to the abdomen and pubic area, some resulting in organ theft...then maybe not so Disorganized after all.

One of the biggest points has to be his entrances and exits, is he just lucky, or does he plan to be so elusive?

The organized camp says he planned exits, and therefore was likley somewhat sure of the locations he'd be leaving from. The disorganized camp says that he just managed to escape at Dutfields Yard, that he just missed getting caught in Mitre Square, and that suggests he wasnt prepared for the ingress/egress issues but was merely lucky to evade capture.

I dont know that there is a line we can draw with what we know about his likely planning skills, only that there is some indication he could move about easily and unseen after he kills.

Best regards all

Absolutely correct. I suspect at least one of the c5 to be a different person, additionally, I suspect an earlier array of less violent crime. The situation is complicated bt the large number of people who lived in the area. I also expect that as details were reported widely, there would be a certain number of people who would take advantage of that information and copycat.