Organised or Disorganised?

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Ben,

So you are saying he was organized or disorganized?

Or am I driving in a town where all the road signs have been switched? Yield is now no left turn. Stop is watch for deer crossing. A green light is a disco ball. And, well you get the picture.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

As I mentioned very early on in the thread, I plump for an organized offender who made the most of the limited options he had available.

Ben

[Wickerman]

First point: He strangled the victims, and the throat was cut post-mortem.

No doctor claimed that strangulation was the cause of death, in fact where the cause of death was stated it was given as syncope, death due to loss of blood bringing on the failure of the heart.

There were cases where it is reasonable to conclude a victim was strangled. For instance with Nichols, evidence of a struggle, bruises on hands, etc., yet no noise was heard mere feet away by residents of Bucks Row.

Chapman's death was due to syncope, yet her body showed distinct signs of strangulation, swollen face, tongue, scratches on neck, black blood in brain, heart & lungs - evidence that for the last few heartbeats she was taking in no oxygen. But it was not strangulation that killed her, it was the cut to the throat.

Eddowes, cause of death, due to loss of blood from the cut to the throat, yet they know Eddowes was laid out first before her throat was cut, same with Chapman, as with Nichols.
How the killer got them all to lay down while he cut their throat is a mystery unless they were subdued in some way, ie; strangled into unconsciousness.

They all died from the cut to the throat, not from strangulation. That is why I was puzzled that you thought it unnecessary.

The question I find intriguing is not that he cut their throat at all, but that he cut their throats twice. Once was enough to kill them, why the second cut? (though I admit that second cut is debatable with Eddowes).

[DarkPassenger]

Hi Ben,

Its easier for me to stay contextual if I address some of your response inside your quote....so.....



I think the fundamental differences we have are:

1. That he was most assuredly poor and a local resident
2. That the acts themselves would not cause him extensive bloodstaining
3. That he must have lived where he dropped organs off.
4. That he did not engage in any misdirection
5. That sneaking into loding houses in the middle of the night with bloodstains and organs to sleep in a communal ward would be something a man who doesnt want to be caught would do....or that Jack didnt have the means or the concerns for his own freedom to secure private quarters.

I do understand where you get some of the points you made Ben, lots of "by the book" Ripperologists would probably say the same things,...the only thing is,..there has never been one shred of evidence from the cases themselves to suggest that the Ripper was poor, was a resident of that Whitechapel/Spitafield district, and that he would not have blood on his clothing and hands.

We have some serial killer studies that show us.....well, hold on, these are not determined a series of kills by one man, they are suspected of being so. We do not know he was poor and local, just many Ripperologists believe that is so. We do not know that he didnt want to kill outdoors...we are just told by those same people that he would have preferred to kill indoors....to explain Mary Jane. And we dont know of he ever tried to mislead the investigations, we are just to assume that the apron was on route home.

Im sure you see my side Ben,...Ill accept the whole lot if you can offer one tiny bit of evidence that the killer was any of those things you suggest. Again,....a suspects wardrobe is evidence of nothing...it is suggestive, and also something a coy killer might factor into his evenings.

Best regards Ben...as always.

Hi perrymason,

The reason Mary Jane was killed indoors is probably because Mary Jane took her clients indoors, and the reason why the other victims were killed outdoors was probably because they took their clients (literally) outdoors! Anyone trying to find some deep clunky functional reason for the indoor/outdoor thing is wasting their time.

Serial killers are overwhelmingly male, white and working class. It is therefore pretty much certain Jack was male, white and working class. The idea of him being royalty or other such rubbish is deserving of a spell in a nuthouse.

There is, however, no evidence either way as to whether he's a commuter or a marauder. The apron in Goulston Street is about the best evidence that he lived north of Whitechapel High Street, and if we assume a marauder, in the centre of Whitechapel/Spitalfields probably within yards of Wentworth Steet or Brick Lane/Osborn Street. Still not very specific but again, we don't know either way.

We cannot prove he took any organs, that he wrote any letters, or that he wrote any graffiti. I would say a big fat no to all these - the autopsy reports evidence a hacking and slashing of the corpses, but a clean and methodical removal of the uterus. Unless he was very, very well versed in removing uteri, I doubt he did so. I agree with the theory in "Jack the Ripper: A 21st Century Investigation" that the organs were removed by scavengers before the autopsy.

Just thought I'd add a few thoughts!

[Mutt]

Mr. Wickerman, I agree. The neck wounds appear to be the trauma likely to have resulted in death.

Dr. George Phillips indicates the presence of suffocation in Annie Chapman's case. However, I believe that suffocation or strangulation as a COD is debatable. Lack of oxygen causing Chapman to lose consciousness, then a killing stroke with a bladed weapon across the neck might be a possible theory. Whether Dr. Phillips is accurately describing suffocation is still another question. Petechiae in the eyes, or Florid Petechiae in the face is not noted, only bloating and tongue swelling. Perhaps the dark blood in other areas of the victim's body could be attributed to other trauma. The swelling could be attributed to post mortem physiological changes in the corpse during the early stages of decomposition.

Manual strangulation is often accompanied by damage to the Hyoid bone in the neck, however no such evidence is not noted within the literature. Perhaps this could be explained away by the sharp force damage to the neck.

I also do not read any indication of Ligature strangulation. Dr. Phillips does not indicate any apparent congestion in the head, which is often present in ligature strangulation. Also, I would imagine that the knife wound to the neck should not have destroyed the entire ligature furrow often associated with that type of case.

My first impression is that the killer both silenced and murdered his victim with a bladed instrument to the neck. Perhaps he put his hand or an object over the women's mouth during the initial attack, but the COD would be a sharp force related wound.

As far as his level of organization, I am still debating the exact style and manner of the attack: Blitz v. a more methodical approach. Of course elements of both organization and disorganization appear to be present, but at what levels? Killers do not fall into one or the other catagory, organization is more of sliding scale, with both present at varying levels throughout the event.

The knife wounds to the abdomen and the removal of organs could be explained as a methodical attack, a ritualistic exercise, OR were the attacks a mindless storm of knife thrusts into an area of the victim's body selected by the killer’s fantasy. Why place the intestines on the victim’s shoulders? For display, or to get them out of the way so that he can get at what he wants.

Through literature, as well as posts within this forum, I am starting to form some opinions on these questions, but I am not comfortable enough yet to stand behind them.

To DarkPassenger:
What Scavengers do you suggest took the organs? Rats, mice, cats or dogs? Vermin typically leave behind tell tale bite marks. Dogs maul. None cut cleanly. Or do you imply human scavengers? Missing shoes, clothing and valuables would make some sense as possibly being removed by thieves, but a portion of Annie Chapman's uterus, vagina and 2/3 of her bladder? Dr. Phillips stated "No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum". I either misunderstood something, or I misread some of the literature, because scavengers does not seem plausible in regards to at least these missing organs.

[Wickerman]

....However, I believe that suffocation or strangulation as a COD is debatable.

Agreed, strangulation or suffocation merely as a means to subdue the victim.

....
Lack of oxygen causing Chapman to lose consciousness, then a killing stroke with a bladed weapon across the neck might be a possible theory.

The position of the bodies at the moment of death was commented on in several cases. In each case the respective doctor felt certain the victim was not standing but already laid out when the throat was cut.

....
I also do not read any indication of Ligature strangulation. Dr. Phillips does not indicate any apparent congestion in the head, which is often present in ligature strangulation. Also, I would imagine that the knife wound to the neck should not have destroyed the entire ligature furrow often associated with that type of case.

You have my attention, Mutt. I am quite open to the killer using some kind of ligature, (garrott?). In fact this was suggested in the later killing of Rose Mylett, and that perhaps this instrument was used in several of the previous Ripper cases. I think it was Dr Brownfield who inadvertently suggested the reason for the '2nd cut' to the throat, the killer may have run the blade through the ligature mark (furrow) to obliterate any evidence of its use.

....
My first impression is that the killer both silenced and murdered his victim with a bladed instrument to the neck. Perhaps he put his hand or an object over the women's mouth during the initial attack, but the COD would be a sharp force related wound.

Wouldn't that mean the victim was standing, not laying down?

....
As far as his level of organization, I am still debating the exact style and manner of the attack: Blitz v. a more methodical approach. Of course elements of both organization and disorganization appear to be present, but at what levels? Killers do not fall into one or the other catagory, organization is more of sliding scale, with both present at varying levels throughout the event.

This is true. Though I lean towards 'organised' in the method of attack, a case can be made that the same killer may have attacked Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, if this is true, we are faced with a methodical assassin - organised.
At least, in this initial stage.

....
The knife wounds to the abdomen and the removal of organs could be explained as a methodical attack, a ritualistic exercise, OR were the attacks a mindless storm of knife thrusts into an area of the victim's body selected by the killer’s fantasy. Why place the intestines on the victim’s shoulders? For display, or to get them out of the way so that he can get at what he wants.

I think we can make considerable allowances due to the fact the killer worked in poor light and was rushed. Trying to rationalize an irrational act is perhaps doomed to failure.

[Mutt]

The position of the bodies at the moment of death was commented on in several cases. In each case the respective doctor felt certain the victim was not standing but already laid out when the throat was cut.

I was not aware that Pathologists had come to this conclusion (Forgive me, I'm new to the historical facts surrounding these killings). This gives the attacker a very unique signature and opens this discussion up even more.

Does the following scenario make sense? A weak hand firmly placed to the mouth with a gloved hand or cloth to keep the target from yelling, then a strike to the neck with a bladed weapon, followed by the lowering of the victim to the ground. Once the victim is on the ground a second, much deeper, sawing like movement with the weapon (causing the severing of the spine, jugular, etc.) this would explain the multiple wounds to the neck without getting into more fantastic theories such as a cloth laced with some chemical to subdue the prostitute, or a suffocation which I cannot imagine occurring without some disturbance.

Also, a hand to the face and mouth of Mary Nichols might explain the bruising to the lower right jaw and left face that Dr. Llewellyn described at the autopsy.

The scenario I described makes more sense to me than suffocation does. Suffocation in a mobile adult is rare. In the modern world, suffocation is usually associate with the elderly, handicapped and infants. I suppose we could argue that a very large assailant could overpower and suffocate a smaller, weaker victim, but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in this theory. A quick, ligature attack would make more sense. However, I still believe that some form of physical mark (the furrow left from a hangman's noose for example) would be present on the sides or rear of the neck. However, I think this possibility has to be kept in mind. Wickerman stated...

I think it was Dr Brownfield who inadvertently suggested the reason for the '2nd cut' to the throat, the killer may have run the blade through the ligature mark (furrow) to obliterate any evidence of its use.

I do not believe that we should be dismissive of the removal of the victim's organs. In addition to the organs removed and secreted away from the different murder scenes, the killer took time and energy to locate, remove and place both Eddowes' and Chapman's intestines on their respective shoulders.

Hopefully, any person reading this sees the Whitechapel killer's actions as irrational and evil. However to the killer it must have made at least some sense. If he were raving mad, I believe he would have been caught. In terms of organization, I am seeing Mr. Wickerman's point.

...a case can be made that the same killer may have attacked Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, if this is true, we are faced with a methodical assassin - organized...

[DarkPassenger]

To DarkPassenger:
What Scavengers do you suggest took the organs? Rats, mice, cats or dogs? Vermin typically leave behind tell tale bite marks. Dogs maul. None cut cleanly. Or do you imply human scavengers? Missing shoes, clothing and valuables would make some sense as possibly being removed by thieves, but a portion of Annie Chapman's uterus, vagina and 2/3 of her bladder? Dr. Phillips stated "No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum". I either misunderstood something, or I misread some of the literature, because scavengers does not seem plausible in regards to at least these missing organs.

The worst kind - medical students. It's not my idea, it's not original - the bodies are unnaccompanied between removal from the crime scene and autopsy, and it is quite possible that organs were removed during that time period by body-snatchers, organ thieves, whatever you wish to call them; medical students or simply paid laccies, retrieving organs for study. The organ trade has always been lucrative!

[Mutt]

Now that is a conspiracy theory.

[Ashkenaz]

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

It would be interesting to know if more, or even all the victims were found with their legs parted. I'm guessing they probably were.

I'd say that if this were the case, it would be indicative of the bodies being deliberately posed, and that this was to draw attention to the genital area.

Some of these women were found with stab wounds to the vagina.

[Ben]

Hi Ash,

Some of them had their legs parted, but this needn't have had anything to do with any conscious posing or re-arranging on the part of the killer. I rather suspect it was more a by-product of the killer's attempt to access the abdomen from the front. I'd be much more surprised if the legs were clamped tightly together.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ashkenaz]

I think the Ripper may well have had private accommodation. He needed somewhere to go to clean up and change his clothes. He needed to have a space private enough to clean his clothes or dispose of them altogether. He would therefore have needed to have access to additional clothes. .

In those days all transport was horse drawn. There would have been horse water troughs every so often on main thoroughfares. He probably washed up in these.

The idea is that he didnt get much blood on him anyway. After inducing unconciousness via throttling, he cut their throats as he knelt behind them.

He also needed a place to store his 'trophies'. We know he owned a sharp knife and could disappear, as it were, into a hiding place following his crimes. I think a lot of the evidence points to him being much better off than many others in Whitechapel and Spitalfields.

Maybe he didn't want to store his trophies. Killers of his type often eat body parts

[Ashkenaz]

Hi Ash,

Some of them had their legs parted, but this needn't have had anything to do with any conscious posing or re-arranging on the part of the killer. I rather suspect it was more a by-product of the killer's attempt to access the abdomen from the front. I'd be much more surprised if the legs were clamped tightly together.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben. I see your point. He parted their legs so he could kneel closer to the abdomen while he performed his mutilation.

But surely he could have had that proximity by kneeling at the victims side.

Then again, I think you may have something here. Were I do try and do as he did, I would wish to kneel between the victims legs also. It is easier spatially to visualise where the organs of interest are from that position. Also, I think I would find it easier and safer pushing the knife away from me, rather than from side to side.

I may be wrong. Perhaps the bodies were not posed. I do know however that a serial killer called Ramirez did pose his female victims after death with their legs akimbo. Presumably, this was to shock and disgust the unfortunate person who found the victim.

Then again, Mary Kelly was found murdered upon a bed. He did not need to kneel down to his grisly task then. And she too had her legs parted for whatever reason. Maybe he was posing the victims

[Sam Flynn]

Kelly was found murdered upon a bed. He did not need to kneel down to his grisly task then. And she too had her legs parted for whatever reason.

Kelly's thighs had been largely denuded, and a slab of flesh removed from between them which took with it her external sexual organs. Her killer could not have easily achieved this without forcing her legs apart to a significant extent - evidenced by the grotesque angles subtended by what remained of her thighs after he'd finished with her.

[perrymason]

Since we are momentarily speaking of Kellys legs, If she had been on her right side facing the wall, knees bent, together....then when she is flipped onto her back, the killer might have had her legs splayed for him by the weight and momentum. There is also an appreciable angle variation of her left leg in one of the shots. MJK3 I believe.

She hadnt been dead long enough to make her body stiff by rigor, if they moved the bed slightly for a photo, her limbs might have altered their position slightly. but that doesnt include having her left arm move over a hollowed cavity.

A problem with this organized/disorganized categorization attempts is that an indivdual murder might show both characteristics.

Mary Jane. Its within the bounds of reason to suggest that one version of that night may not have had her leave her room alive again after 11:45pm Thursday night. That would mean that the killer sought her out in her room, and went there to kill her. Thats organized in its simplest purest form. What happens in that room cannot be described as organized, despite the obvious elements of staging there. There are methodically made wounds that serve no purpose for extracating or removing organs, or killing,...so we must assume they were just for pleasing the killer. The thighs are one of the biggest examples, the face another.

I think the combination of obvious staging to some degree, and the fact that the corpse speaks volumes about the killers inability to focus his attention to complete acts he starts, very much opens the door for a killer imitating a serial killer, without the inner rationalizing or abdominal focus Jack had.

Most of the major injuries on Mary are exactly what was printed of earlier attacks, the remaining ones are inexplicable and bizarre quite frankly. This man was organized in the sense that he went to kill, and he did successfully, replicating as best he could something Jack might do, and then he was quite the opposite, based on the absolute scene from hell he created.

Place Polly, Annie and Kate lying on morgue slabs together in your mind....then place Liz and Mary beside them. Is there any doubt that with three women you dont have to guess where on the body his real interests were based.

Best regards folks.