Organised or Disorganised?

[caz]

If I can be so bold as to suggest that you, Ben, and Sam believe that there was a serial killer who craved mutilations running around the East End in the Fall of 88. You feel he likely lived in the area, and was probably "working" poor. Ben has doubts about Liz, but you and Sam less so, and essentially none of you would have a problem with tentatively accepting the Canonical group. You feel his motivations were based in his mind. Caz and Sam feel that the killer of Millers Court was Jack, Ben thinks he was Jack and maybe a known man to Mary.

Hi Perry,

I do suspect that one man murdered and mutilated at least four women in 1888, but I also suspect that what he craved and why would be impossible for anyone (even perhaps the killer himself) to know, much less prove. I only feel he was familiar and comfortable with the area; I cannot tell from the victims or murder locations what manner of man killed them, or how far the killer came to do so, but I suspect he would not have got Kate alone in the darkness of Mitre Square without showing her the entrance money and putting on a class “trust me” act first. Boy would I like to have followed that couple from the main road and listened in. She may have needed a drink but she wasn’t tired of living when she left the cop shop.

I have no doubt that the same man was easily capable of killing Liz first, but that’s not the same as having no doubt that he did, or doubting that anyone else was capable. My beef is with groundless arguments for another unknown man being more capable of the swiftly efficient job that left Liz dead and her killer free to kill again or not, as the case may be.

I neither accept nor reject the ‘canon’. I don’t think the evidence can ever provide a definitive set of yes/no ‘ripper’ victims. It’s hard enough if someone confesses to a series of murders to confirm they have included every one or are not claiming more than they committed. But when there is every reason to believe that one man was responsible for at least two of a string of unsolved murders with no obvious motive, I simply don’t follow the logic of introducing a second man without strong evidence against a known individual for one of the other murders, or strong evidence that the first man wasn’t capable of it.

Using such limited examples of the first man’s known homicidal behaviour, and no examples at all of the second man’s, to put the latter in the frame for a particular murder and clear the former, strikes me as no better than trying to guess either man’s motives - or knit fog.

For the life of me I can’t see the point of trying too hard to eliminate a known homicidal maniac from an unsolved murder, especially when it involves ignoring or explaining away many similarities and flushing an entire scene full of potential clues down the drain in the process. If there is no hard evidence for taking the ripper from the scene, why is even the best argument for replacing him with another unknown killer worth bothering with? Where does it get us in the long run?

I think one of the strangest arguments is to say that because we know the area and period in question boasted an unusually high number of active lady killers, this somehow entitles us to add to the number of these rare birds, when perhaps we should be saying enough is enough until we know why it already had more than its fair share.

We dont know who he killed for sure, where he lived, what he did, why he killed, what he wanted, which way he went when leaving crime scenes, and what happened to him.

Agreed. I don’t think I’ve claimed to know any of those things.

Before you tell someone why they are wrong, consider that they may not be seeing these events or evidence as you are, and that you cant prove they are wrong anyway.

Of course we don’t all interpret the evidence the same way. But I don’t think I’ve ever tried to tell you that your interpretations are wrong or that mine are right. An interpretation is not necessarily ‘wrong’ if it isn’t supported with the limited facts available; there’d just be no way to confirm it. But any facts and reasoning used to back up that interpretation still have to be sound. Big difference.

It would cause far less anger if anyone who posts, senior members and juniors, remember that unless we are reviewing new evidence together, the existing evidence is far from conclusive about any aspect of the possible killer or killers.

Dont jump to post back...consider the points.

Don’t worry, I rarely ‘jump to post back’, and usually take far longer to consider the points than I intended.

I just don’t get the reference to ‘anger’. What is there to be angry about in an internet conversation about an old murder mystery?

One last thing to consider: Mary was attacked by someone who must have given her little or no warning that he was the kind of nasty, volatile creature who could flip into violent murder mode and slaughter a woman in her own bed; a man who gave nobody around him a hint of any such character, either before or after he committed that crime. In short, he was a man who appeared normal and non-violent to everyone who knew him until the moment he flipped with Mary, but managed to remain organised enough to make her look like the other chap’s work before flipping back to normal and getting on with his life. Does this really sound so much more like a domestic killer than the same man who took Polly, Annie and Kate by surprise? He may as well have been a stranger to Mary too, since she couldn’t have really known him if she had no clue what he had in store for her.

I know that not all domestic killers have obvious violent or abusive tendencies, but I suspect the majority do and that they get caught as a result. I also know that whole families can be taken completely by surprise and wiped out by men who showed no outward signs of the trouble brewing within. In such cases it is common for the man to break down and give himself up or take his own life. He stands almost no chance of reverting to normal afterwards.

So what are the chances of the man who wanted rid of Mary having this much in common with the man who killed the others?

Sorry about the huge post! Happy Weekend!!

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I know that not all domestic killers have obvious violent or abusive tendencies

I wouldn't mind betting that a number of domestic murders are preceded by an almighty, "disorganised", row.

(Excellent post, by the way, Caz. You hit several nails on the head.)

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Some good points Caz, and Im particularly interested in your specific points on the Kelly murderer that you finish with.

I feel that there are indications by the cyclic pattern that is present throughout the series that the person in question had a life that restricted his ability to "work". In that, for 20-21 days each month, I might add the same 20-21 days each month, he doesnt kill, and no sightings or attempts are directly linked to this particular killer during those days...mostly I suppose because they had no idea what he looked like anyway.

That would mean that the man can and did act "normal" enough to have not raised suspicions with people who knew him best. For example, the young man from Poplar that commits suicide by cutting his own throat in front of his father the day Mary is buried was a cause of concern to those closest to him all Fall. But this "Ripper" guy didnt arouse suspicions, and yet was committing horrendous acts at night a few times a month.

That to me smacks of self control, self control requires concentration, concentration requires a focussed thought pattern, and that requires some discipline.

I dont see why that kind of guy couldnt be a lover of Marys, without her having any idea...as they do not sleep together all the time and so the nights wouldnt be monitored, and the man can control his demeanor around her.

I think thats the kind of man that gets Mary to lower her guard to the extent she may have....like letting a man in very late at night and then getting in bed with her back turned to him, if thats how it shook out...

A client is a man unknown by her in close quarters...I feel had she entertained one in her room she would have some level of consciousness placed on her safety, ...we know she was scared of the killings.

I think the idea he erupts without warning is accurate, I dont know that he isn't in control of it though. It seems to me that Polly and Annie and Kate were subdued before being cut at all...that self control again, but Mary is cut at the outset of the attack, based on what appear to be her defensive wounds.

I think that there may be evidence that this guy was far worse that just a Jack...he might have been bright, employed and also truly an evil cold person. That kind of guy would be harder to find than a someone who is mentally incapable....surely there would be clues seen if he was bonkers 24-7.

Best regards Caz

[perrymason]

In case you didnt notice...that was one of the very few times Ill make an argument for Marys killer to have been close to her and also been Jack.

Off to visit the folks. Cheers.

[caz]

...That would mean that the man can and did act "normal" enough to have not raised suspicions with people who knew him best. For example, the young man from Poplar that commits suicide by cutting his own throat in front of his father the day Mary is buried was a cause of concern to those closest to him all Fall. But this "Ripper" guy didnt arouse suspicions, and yet was committing horrendous acts at night a few times a month.

That to me smacks of self control, self control requires concentration, concentration requires a focussed thought pattern, and that requires some discipline.

I dont see why that kind of guy couldnt be a lover of Marys, without her having any idea...as they do not sleep together all the time and so the nights wouldnt be monitored, and the man can control his demeanor around her.

I think thats the kind of man that gets Mary to lower her guard to the extent she may have...

...I think that there may be evidence that this guy was far worse that just a Jack...he might have been bright, employed and also truly an evil cold person. That kind of guy would be harder to find than a someone who is mentally incapable....surely there would be clues seen if he was bonkers 24-7.

Hi Perry,

Yes, I did notice you seemed to be arguing there for one character in all the cases we discuss: someone with enough control over each selected victim to get her into a suitably vulnerable and unsuspecting position in his presence, even at the height of the ripper scare, so he could attack and kill her before she really knew what was coming or could scream the place down. Not even Mary could have been given an inkling that she was about to be “ill-used” to buggery and beyond (to coin an expression). And the man got clean away after every attack without leaving any clues to his identity and without anyone voicing concerns about him as a violent, potentially volatile individual.

The man who killed Mary was either Jack, or he coincidentally had the same kind of ‘attributes’ that allowed them both to avoid suspicion, capture or identification. He also coincidentally struck within the ‘cyclic pattern’ you describe, and pulled off a performance worthy of a ripper finale, without the least expectation that Jack would graciously bow out at that point. Had the ripper proceeded from Mitre Square to another typical outdoor operation, he would have left this over-the-top copycat stranded like a pig in the middle.

If the same animal killed in Mitre Square and Miller’s Court, it would appear to be a case of doing more of what he fancied, less of what he was bored with, and adding a (heart) string or two to his bow, possibly burning himself out in the whole destructive process. That makes more sense to me than Jack taking early retirement immediately after Mitre Square, coincidentally leaving the stage to be owned by a similarly elusive killer who managed to lose his head in a very disorganised fashion at exactly the right time over the Dorset Street unfortunate who had supposedly blighted his life, but still acted in the cool-headed, calculating and organised manner required to pull it off without a hitch.

But I certainly see no pressing need for Mary’s killer to be a lover or associate - unless of course one has a pet suspect for Jack who only makes an entrance as a direct result of her exit, or a suspect who demands an early bath after his date with Kate because he will be unavailable for the November appointment.

On balance I think there are more problems to be ironed out with two organised/disorganised killers than with one who murdered several strangers before finally turning on a woman he was known to have had a possibly stormy relationship with.

But the problems melt away if McCarthy only sent Bowyer round because he had every reason to believe Mary would have some coins for him, but her cupboard was as bare as she was because she had just been ripped - and ripped off - by a stranger of the very meanest type.

Love,

Caz
X

[protohistorian]

typology

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.

The Typology for oranized and disorganized is centered on treatment of the victims body. Left exposed is a disorganized trait. Hidden bodies are the mark of an organized killer. The reason for this is that this feature best explains the killers own understanding of his environment. JtR was a disorganized killer based on the victim treatment, and we may subsequently suspect a detachment from the "reality" of his surroundings.

[Planet_Mercury]

Hi all,

I haven't read all the posts on this thread but I'm not sure that we here are qualified to classify JtR as being organised or disorganised without any training or real understanding about what these terms actually mean. Sure - we can put own own interpretation on them but without any real training or understanding there is a good chance we could be completely wrong.

For example, a number of people are saying JtR was "organised" because he did "A" but that is making the dangerous assumption that "A" is a characteristic of organised offenders. Unless you know that for a fact because you are a profiler or know a lot about profiling you could be completely wrong irrespective of how obvious it may seem. To prove my point, many people on this thread are disagreeing with others' diagnosis of JtR's behaviour by putting forward their own "A"'s (explanations as to why he organised or disorganised) but there is a lot of disagreement. Clearly not everyone can be right so someone must be wrong.

If there are any profilers or people that have read any specific texts on the matter of profiling on this forum then it would be very interesting to hear what they have to say and their reasons why.

From the few profiles that the FBI have released about JtR (that I have seen) they have all said he was "disorganised" and frankly very lucky to escape detection. I think it might be safer to go with the experts on this assessment of his behaviour.

That said, I would welcome anyone else's opinion on this matter.

By the way, an excellent book that does explain the concepts of organised and disorganised behaviour is a text called "Sexual Homicide: Patterns and motives" by Robert Ressler. I believe (and I may stand corrected on this) that the text was made available to all FBI trainees. It is available for public purchase.

[Christine]

I don't know if this has been posted here before or not, but here is a link to a study of serial killers and the organized/disorganized dichotomy.

http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/ccir/documents/pdforganised.pdf

The article is a bit dense, but the upshot of it was that there was no dichotomy--that a crime with a "disorganized" trait was just as likely to share a given organized trait (or a given disorganized trait) as the average crime.

That said, they also give lists of organized and disorganized traits, which you can match to the ripper murders. Jack has far more in the disorganized list.

[perrymason]

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

[Jon Guy]

The Typology for oranized and disorganized is centered on treatment of the victims body. Left exposed is a disorganized trait. Hidden bodies are the mark of an organized killer. The reason for this is that this feature best explains the killers own understanding of his environment. JtR was a disorganized killer based on the victim treatment, and we may subsequently suspect a detachment from the "reality" of his surroundings.

This is where I feel profiling, based on studies of 20th Century criminals, has little to bear in the case of a man born around 1850.

The very nature of housing in the Whitechapel area puts pay to someone hiding a body in their home like Christie, Dahmer, Nielson.

No car unlike Bundy, Ridgeway, Suttcliffe or Wright.

The Ripper was practical - the safest thing for him to do is to leave the bodies where they were found.

I believe the crime scenes show an organised culprit. No weapon, no footprints, nothing personal of the killer present.

But, the way Annie Chapman is picked up at the last possible moment before light, whether he had been prowling all night, or just saw her and went for it shows an impulsive character, with little planning.

[protohistorian]

This is where I feel profiling, based on studies of 20th Century criminals, has little to bear in the case of a man born around 1850.

The very nature of housing in the Whitechapel area puts pay to someone hiding a body in their home like Christie, Dahmer, Nielson.

No car unlike Bundy, Ridgeway, Suttcliffe or Wright.

The Ripper was practical - the safest thing for him to do is to leave the bodies where they were found.

I believe the crime scenes show an organised culprit. No weapon, no footprints, nothing personal of the killer present.

But, the way Annie Chapman is picked up at the last possible moment before light, whether he had been prowling all night, or just saw her and went for it shows an impulsive character, with little planning.

The bias is an anethema. When profiling different social contexts, the best that can be done is an interpretation. An example of this would be the Torso killer. If one assumes that the reason for mutilation is to obfiscate the truth rather than pathology driven, then the killer has enough understanding of his enviroment and his actions to take action to avoid detection. Therefore he would be an organized killer. Again these are interpretations, profiling will never be an accurate predictor, as a methodology it is geared to work in tandem with hindsight.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[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.