Organised or Disorganised?

[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?

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[Pippin Joan]

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.

I agree with Monty on this. Of course it depends on the image you put together in your mind about who/what Jack is as a person. I see him as a calculating, but disorganized killer. He goes out with a plan to find someone but he is not really all that careful. By that I mean that he is alert to any chance that he may be caught, but he is totally dependent on his choice of neighbourhood, time of killing (when few people are out), and his knowledge of the streets. Jack is interested in body organs and he finds people who can supply the material for his little investigations. It helps him tremendously that police forensics is practically non-existent. Criminal psychology is barely a matter of any study. To people of the day, a person who would do this must be similar to Jekyll's Hyde, a completely crazed beast, not a person who appears normal to the world.

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.

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.

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.

[Ben]

Hi Limehouse,

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.

I'm not sure why the presence of mutilations of strangulation (etc) would indicate a desire to expose his victims. The strangulation/suffocation probably only fulfilled the purpose of silencing the victim, and the mutilations were undoubtedly personal to him, as opposed to some depraved form of artwork intended for an audience. For that reason, I'd have to disagree pretty strongly that he would not have used his home if he had one. Rather, I think the exposed nature of the bodies points to someone without private accomodation making the most of mitigating circumstances.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mutt]

The concept of organization or disorganization is educated guesswork, and may be particularly suited for a discussion of a 120 year old group of homicides. The one aspect of the White Chapel murders that seems to have survived in great detail is the descriptions of the crime scenes and autopsies.

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. At the very least he could have hid them a little so as to increase the time the killer had to put distance between himself and the crime scene.

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. This could either be an off handed dismissal of the women's bodies, the killer's desire to display the ruined corpses, or he had no choice in the location of the crime, but felt it needed to be carried out none the less. 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.

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. If that is the case, then the killer may want the product of his rage known to the public, he worked hard, now he's showing off his finished product.

Gentleman, I am relatively new to the forum, and through the web site and the forum, I have learned a lot. Thanks for the education.

[Limehouse]

Hi Mutt, and welcome. The post above completely hits the nail on the head for me. I completely agree.