Organised or Disorganised?

[Jon Guy]

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.

Do you mean the Torso killer was organised because he had a place to dismember the body ?

Because the Torso killer hid the I.D. of the body we can also consider that there was a link between killer and victim.

Already we have two facts about our organised killer.

Facts not applicable to our disorganised killer who picked up strangers, and left them where they were killed.

[Christine]

Do you mean the Torso killer was organised because he had a place to dismember the body ?

Because the Torso killer hid the I.D. of the body we can also consider that there was a link between killer and victim.

Already we have two facts about our organised killer.

Facts not applicable to our disorganised killer who picked up strangers, and left them where they were killed.

Hi Jon.

Dismembering a body is considered organized because it makes it harder to ID the victim and is part of disposing of the evidence. Some of the torsos were never identified, if I recall correctly, which would of course make it impossible for the police to question acquaintances about the victims' last hours. In general, the organized killer plans his crimes in advance, considers the choice of victim in advance, plans a location for the crime, and plans how to dispose of the evidence.

However, as discussed in the study I linked to above, there isn't really a dichotomy--the killer who dismembers his victims turns out to be no more likely to plan his location in advance than the average killer. However, the torso killer certainly seems to be planning ahead much more than Jack. He must have had a private place where the victims were taken, for example.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Jon.

Dismembering a body is considered organized because it makes it harder to ID the victim and is part of disposing of the evidence. Some of the torsos were never identified, if I recall correctly, which would of course make it impossible for the police to question acquaintances about the victims' last hours. In general, the organized killer plans his crimes in advance, considers the choice of victim in advance, plans a location for the crime, and plans how to dispose of the evidence.

However, as discussed in the study I linked to above, there isn't really a dichotomy--the killer who dismembers his victims turns out to be no more likely to plan his location in advance than the average killer. However, the torso killer certainly seems to be planning ahead much more than Jack. He must have had a private place where the victims were taken, for example.

In the Thames torso series, the only body that was identified was that of prostitute Elizabeth Jackson.

Chris

[BLUE WIZZARD]

In my opinion as to whether Jack was organized or disorganized.

I would have to say he was organized; he did not leave anything behind to incriminate himself other than the body.

He left no clues of his identity.

Even though Jack worked fast, I believe that he was not in anyway panicked or stressed at any time while working on his victim.

He made sure that nothing incriminating was left behind.

If Jack was disorganized he would have been caught.

BW

[FrankO]

I would have to say he was organized; he did not leave anything behind to incriminate himself other than the body.

He left no clues of his identity.

He made sure that nothing incriminating was left behind.

Hi BW,

What clues are you thinking of? What clues would the police of 1888 have needed to have a chance of catching him?

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

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.

Hi Michael,

I agree with you that his approach was rather methodical, or so it seems, which would be another more organized feature.

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.

Are you saying that JtR could have done what he did at any given time of day and at any given site without being caught?

All the best Michael,
Frank

[Jay Batsford]

Even if JTR had left clues the law was powerless to act on them there was no forensics to speak of at the time no finger printing no DNA no profiling the killer had to be caught in the act directly or leaving the scene of the murder directly and if they where suspected of the crime but weren't caught in the act the only way to get a conviction was to get the suspect to confess! How many murders do you think went unsolved when the police had so little to work with?

[Christine]

Actually, we don't know that he wasn't caught. We do know that the police never arrested him and charged him with murder. But a family member may have caught him and sent him to an asylum, or he may have committed suicide, or he may have come so close to getting caught that he moved to America. And it's also quite possible that the police knew about this suicide or commitment, and simply decided to let the whole business rest at that.

If when you say "disorganized" you mean in a general sense, like describing my office, then you can make a case for Jack being organized or not. But there's no question that if you follow the list of organized and disorganized traits as used by profilers, that Jack is disorganized.

Disorganized

Vaginal rape (74%)
Overkill (70%)
Multiple sex acts (66%)
Beaten (61%)
Body left in isolated spot (54%)
Belongings scattered (47%)
Tease cuts (38%)
Bludgeoned (38%)
Clothing scattered (36%)
Object penetration (35%)
Improvised murder weapon (31%)
Manual strangulation (27%)
Violence directed at genitalia (23%)
Weapon left in victim (19%)
Facial disfigurement (19%)
Throat cut (19%)
Trail of clothing to murder scene (13%)
Ransacking (11%)
Genital mutilation (10%)
Body parts missing (10%)
Thoracic mutilation (9%)
Burns on victim (8%)
Abdominal mutilation (8%)
Innards extracted (6%)
Decapitation (5%)
Dismemberment (3%)

Organized
Victim alive during sex acts (91%)
Body positioned (75%)
Murder weapon missing (67%)
Multiple crime scene (61%)
Body concealed (58%)
Torture (53%)
Restraints (40%)
Body covered post mortem (37%)
Ligature strangulation (34%)
Firearm used (23%)
Tampered with evidence (21%)
Gagging (16%)
Bitemarks (5%)

Now part of the problem is that the dichotomy is artificial--all killers are both organized and disorganized, some lean one way, some the other, but the main point of the article by Canter, et al., is that any given organized feature is just as likely to be found with another organized feature as it is with a disorganized feature. So keeping all this in mind, let's look at Jack.

Disorganized
Overkill (70%)
Body left in isolated spot (54%)
Belongings scattered (47%)
Manual strangulation (27%)
Violence directed at genitalia (23%)
Facial disfigurement (19%)
Throat cut (19%)
Genital mutilation (10%)
Body parts missing (10%)
Thoracic mutilation (9%)
Abdominal mutilation (8%)
Innards extracted (6%)

So Jack has 12 of 26 hits, if I count correctly, including some very uncommon features like "innards extracted."

Organized
Body positioned (75%)
Murder weapon missing (67%)
Multiple crime scene (61%)

Only 3 of 13, and all quite common.

I said dismemberment was organized, and I was wrong. I apologize for this. I assumed the main reason someone would dismember a corpse would be to dispose of it without revealing its identity, but I guess the ick factor pushes this into the disorganized side.

The problem with all this is that there is no real dichotomy. The claim is that murders with a high ick factor (like Jacks') also reflect on the killer's life, that he is low IQ, has a family protecting him, doesn't have a regular job, stuff like that. All this is pretty questionable. Still, I find it hard to believe that someone who did this could have washed up and gone to work in a pie shop the next morning without someone so much as asking if he'd had a rough night.

[Jon Guy]

Very interesting post, Christine, thanks

[FrankO]

If when you say "disorganized" you mean in a general sense, like describing my office, then you can make a case for Jack being organized or not.

Hi Christine,

Allthough I appreciate your posts too, I'm not such a big fan of FBI based profiling, as it seems to be based too much on statistics and too little on the actual individual case that is being researched.

To me, 'organized' means: aware of the possible consequences of your chosen action and taking precautions to prevent being held responsible for those consequences. 'Disorganized' to me means: unaware of the possible consequences and not taking any precautions. These are the two extremes, but there's a lot of room in between.

Using these two extremes, JtR wasn't completely 'disorganized'. If he was, it would have been sheer luck that kept him from being caught as the Ripper, and I don't believe that to be true. He was undoubtedly lucky, but not just lucky. Of course, this is just my take on it.

All the best,
Frank

[perrymason]

I enjoyed reading that math example too Christine...nice post.

To answer your question Frank, I dont know that he could have been as successful with other venues, different profile victims, or even modified attack/kill behaviours....I can only say that with the venues he did kill in, he seems to have had little trouble leaving the scene unseen.

Either he knew the areas streets and lanes like the back of his hands, even at night....or he had some ideas about how to leave certain areas discreetly. Im not sure that the victims always led.

Cheers Frank, Christine.

[Christine]

Hi Christine,

Allthough I appreciate your posts too, I'm not such a big fan of FBI based profiling, as it seems to be based too much on statistics and too little on the actual individual case that is being researched.

To me, 'organized' means: aware of the possible consequences of your chosen action and taking precautions to prevent being held responsible for those consequences. 'Disorganized' to me means: unaware of the possible consequences and not taking any precautions. These are the two extremes, but there's a lot of room in between.

Using these two extremes, JtR wasn't completely 'disorganized'. If he was, it would have been sheer luck that kept him from being caught as the Ripper, and I don't believe that to be true. He was undoubtedly lucky, but not just lucky. Of course, this is just my take on it.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank.

You've hit on the problem with profiling. The claim is that by looking at Jack's high number of hits on the disorganized list we can deduce that Jack was barely functional, lived with his family or girlfriend, didn't have a regular job, wasn't aware of police patrols, didn't scout for his locations in advance, wouldn't be capable of tricking or outsmarting a victim, things like that. This is a disputed claim, at best.

[perrymason]

...The claim is that by looking at Jack's high number of hits on the disorganized list we can deduce that Jack was barely functional, lived with his family or girlfriend, didn't have a regular job, wasn't aware of police patrols, didn't scout for his locations in advance, wouldn't be capable of tricking or outsmarting a victim, things like that. This is a disputed claim, at best.

Disputable...I would agree Christine. The profile you just gave is one that many intelligent and well studied folks on these cases believe to this day. Even though for it to be correct the killer would have had to have the most incredible good luck and have avoided dozens of men, police and vigilantees, who were on the streets looking for him.

Its very possible he had a job....born out by the fact he kills on days that are traditionally work stoppage days for some local occupations, he seems to have "functioned" well enough to take Annies uterus without extraneous cutting and Kates kidney out through her front.....and escaped all murder sites cleanly,....whether he was aware of police patrols is unclear, but we do know he wasnt caught by any or seen leaving a scene by any of them.....and whether he scouted locations isnt clear, but is is clear that in Mitre Square 2 of 3 exits were used by patrolling policeman to access the square, and one views the square by one entrance within a minute or so of the following one who enters the Square and finds the body.

I think its clear he was either a huge risk taker, incapable of planning and the most lucky killer in the history of murder... to evade capture with everyone out at night looking for him.....or his "luck" was nothing of the sort.

Cheers Christine

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Frank,

anything that would identify him, leaving his wallet behind, leaving his knife behind, looking strait at a withess and running.

Unorganized.

BW

[FrankO]

Hi BW,

Yes, but what physical clue would actually identify him back in those days? I don't think his knife would, as there was no fingerprinting or forensics yet back then. His wallet maybe, if he even had one and didn't put it in a 'safe' place on his body. But I'm sure there were no ID or credit cards and stuff like that in it. Hairs, fibers, semen, finger, palm or footprints? I'm sure they wouldn't, as there was no fingerprinting or forensics. Personal items like gloves, a shawl, a paper clipping, a bag or whatever? I don't believe so. Maybe (some of) the stuff found around Eddowes' and Chapman's bodies was really his. The police did follow up on some of those items, but it didn't get them anywhere. They seem to have assumed the items were personal belongings of the victims.

So, the fact that he quite probably didn't leave any physical thing behind other than the bodies, in my view doesn't necessarily point to 'organizedness', because he could have left a lot of things behind without the police being any the wiser. Back in those days the police either had to catch him in the act, fleeing the scene or as a result of a confession. Like I said earlier, in my view the Ripper was organized in the sense that he saw to it that he left the scenes before anyone walked into him, that he probably wasn't all covered in blood and that he wasn't noticed between the crime scenes and his home.

All the best,
Frank