Organised or Disorganised?

[Chava]

Interesting discussion. I think he's one of the more organized killers I've heard about. He doesn't just jump his victims, but gets them into a (reasonably) private area. He always kills the same way. He must bring something with him to transport his trophies. And I do think he poses the legs. He could have just pushed them to either side, but the legs are always shown lying in the same position. I can't think that's a coincidence. However I don't think the posing aspect of this series has much to do with the organization or disorganization of the killer.

[Fisherman]

Michael!

You write:

"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."

But what about Kate Eddowe´s facial mutilation, Michael? That was not done by someone imitating a serial killer, was it? Nor did those cuts display any focus on the abdominal area.

Kelly is different, yes. But the killer is not, I believe. There are so many factors, external and very probably internal, that differed from the earlier killings that this itself lends itself very well to explaining WHY we ended up with a differing scenario in Marys case.

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[harry]

I believe the ripper to have been an organised individual.Certainly in his mental approach,and if a little disorganised conduct is shown in the physical application,that can be accepted due to the circumstances of time and location.He would have been aware of possible interuption,so the early hours of the morning with chance of less pedestrian traffic,would be a far better prospect than the evening period when movement of people would be at a maximum,even though the latter might present more opportunity to meet a victim.
There appears nothing disorganised about his leaving the sites.Even if,as it appears,he was forced to abandon further mutilation by unforseen arrivals,the retreat was done in a manner that raised no suspicion.Even being seen in the company of victims ,or at the murder site(yes! I believe at least four occasions),was no deterrent to killing soon after.A very self assured,organised person in my opinion.

[caz]

Hi Harry,

I find myself agreeing with practically everything you say here.

I think the killer may even have tried to organise things so that when the circumstances felt right he could really let himself go, resulting in the discarded, mutilated bodies giving off disorganised vibes, while other aspects of the crimes (eg going out tooled up with a freshly sharpened knife in case he got the opportunity to use one; knowing who, where, when and how to strike for maximum efficiency and security; judging the right moment to call a halt and effect the perfect disappearing act; and ending up somewhere he had reason to believe would not automatically expose him to pesky house-to-house searchers) were sufficiently well organised to preserve his anonymity for the rest of his distinctly unnatural life and arguably for all eternity.

I had always assumed that he only killed as a means to a specific end, ie to render his victims dead as quickly as possible so he could mutilate them and, if possible, take an organ away with him as a keepsake. I still feel that the main rush for him was - or at least became - the mutilation of the dead women, and that he took trophies to remind him of that rush. Now I'm not so sure he didn't get considerable satisfaction from the initial attacks, but found that the very circumstances of time and place that necessitated a quick and safe departure gave him an even greater buzz.

In short, there's nothing to say he didn't get any thrills from the act of violent murder itself, particularly as Jack's were all carried out in risky locations and situations. Equally, there's nothing to say the mutilations were not introduced for the sole purpose of extending and heightening the basic murder experience as much as possible once the victim was lifeless. Would he have mutilated his victims in a similar way - or at all - if he had had all the time in the world in which to do it and not a living soul close enough to give an edge to the operation? I'm not so sure. It's almost like he was testing himself to see how much damage he could inflict each time before he had to get the hell out of it.

But I'd be interested in hearing other people's views.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Michael!

You write:

"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."

But what about Kate Eddowe´s facial mutilation, Michael? That was not done by someone imitating a serial killer, was it? Nor did those cuts display any focus on the abdominal area.

Kelly is different, yes. But the killer is not, I believe. There are so many factors, external and very probably internal, that differed from the earlier killings that this itself lends itself very well to explaining WHY we ended up with a differing scenario in Marys case.

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,..hope the New Year is starting off right for you.

On Kates facial wounds, although I dont agree with the idea, it is possible that those were created as collateral damage when slicing her nose almost off as Sam has suggested. Within the realm of possibility anyway.....which seems to be plenty of ammunition to make assertions with for some folks. As to the focus of Kates mutilations, yes she was cut breastbone to pubis, but no, that doesnt indicate anything remarkable when tallying the eventual take, which were only organs from the bodies midsection, as were Annies. And since that is the only area mutilated on Polly, a reasonable fit with his past kills I think.

She was outdoors, like all 3 others,... she had no paid bed like all 3 others,... she apparently was picked up by her killer, as all the 3 others seem to have been,... she was subdued before having her throat cut....like 2 maybe 3 of the others, she had organs taken from the specific region that 2 others had mutilated, with 1 of them giving up abdominal organs, and she was left to be found by the next person by that area.

Mary was indoors, like none of the others,... had a bed to sleep in that night, like none of the others,... by all evidence that is valid seems to have been in her room when the killer comes to her, unlike all the others,.... she was attacked with a knife while she could still resist and defend herself, like none of the others,... she had an organ taken from her chest cavity, like none of the others, ...there is no specific indications that her abdomen held any exclusive interest to him, unlike all the others, and access to her body was restricted, by locking the door, .....obviously unlike the others with a lock being available to him, but also the only victim alleged to be Jacks that could not be found unless looked for.....in this case, by Bowyer parting the curtains. .......unlike all the others...and not just Canonicals.

Although I know you dont do this type of thing Fisherman, for those who would like to include any possible answer under the sun, that lacks proof, for the killer to have been Jack...(which is the only way you can assert Jack killed her other than by using opinions of the day)....perhaps you could offer rebuttal that actually has some grounds or foundation with evidence that is related to enable it.

It would make the rebuttal unique... well, for here anyway.

Cheers Fisherman.

[Sam Flynn]

also the only victim alleged to be Jacks that could not be found unless looked for.....in this case, by Bowyer parting the curtains...

...otherwise she could never, ever, have been found, Mike? I hardly think so.

If Cross and Paul hadn't chanced upon Nichols, her body may not have been found until sun-up; if John Davis hadn't gone for a widdly-wee in the yard, Chapman's would not have been found until later; if Diemschutz hadn't entered Dutfield's at that point, Liz might not have been discovered until after Eddowes had been killed; and the latter's savage death would likely have remained undetected until the next morning, had not PC Watkins' beat included Mitre Square.

Now, substitute "Bowyer" for Cross, Paul, Davis, Diemschutz and Watkins, and it rapidly becomes apparent that there's a common factor that links the murders - in each case the body was stumbled upon inadvertently. Bowyer was no more "looking for" Kelly's body than the aforementioned were "looking" for the corpses that they found.

[perrymason]

...otherwise she could never, ever, have been found, Mike? I hardly think so.

If Cross and Paul hadn't chanced upon Nichols, her body may not have been found until sun-up; if John Davis hadn't gone for a widdly-wee in the yard, Chapman's would not have been found until later; if Diemschutz hadn't entered Dutfield's at that point, Liz might not have been discovered until after Eddowes had been killed; and the latter's savage death would likely have remained undetected until the next morning, had not PC Watkins' beat included Mitre Square.

Now, substitute "Bowyer" for Cross, Paul, Davis, Diemschutz and Watkins, and it rapidly becomes apparent that there's a common factor that links the murders - in each case the body was stumbled upon inadvertently. Bowyer was no more "looking for" Kelly's body than the aforementioned were "looking" for the corpses that they found.

Was Marys body discovered by the next person to walk past the place where she had died Sam? NO,....a simple fact. Thats all I said, she was looked for. Did I suggest she would never be found,...as you wrote? Or that he was looking for her body?

The fact that the others were killed and left in public venues or private yards, and were found by the next person by that spot should be enough to verify my post as is. And to differentiate the circumstances of the last from the first 4.

Maybe youd prefer wording like "unrestricted access to the bodies of 1-4 and restricted access to the body of number 5"...which is precisely what I said with different words.

Regards.

[diana]

Continuum

Since no killer is absolutely one or the other I wonder if it would have some value to create a list of SK's ranked according to how organized/disorganized they are and then try to see where JTR fits in the spectrum. The most disorganized one I know of is Mr. Li the bus decapitator. He did what he did in full view of a busload of passengers and was caught almost immediately.

Here is my ranking, from disorganized to organized, others may disagree.

Weiguang Li
Jack the Ripper
Ted Kacynski
Ted Bundy
Dennis Rader
Zodiac

[Sam Flynn]

Was Marys body discovered by the next person to walk past the place where she had died Sam? NO,....a simple fact.

A simple fact that's understandable given that the body was indoors. You can't claim "being indoors" as one "significantly different" feature of the Kelly murder and then go on to claim that "she wasn't seen by someone walking past" as another - they're two sides of the same coin.

Besides, the fact remains that Kelly's body would have been found at some point; just as the fact remains that the other victims wouldn't have been discovered until much later had not Cross, Paul (etc) happened to wander by when they did.

Kelly's body was FOUND, just like all the others; it wasn't "looked for".

[perrymason]

A simple fact that's understandable given that the body was indoors. You can't claim "being indoors" as one "significantly different" feature of the Kelly murder and then go on to claim that "she wasn't seen by someone walking past" as another - they're two sides of the same coin.

Besides, the fact remains that Kelly's body would have been found at some point; just as the fact remains that the other victims wouldn't have been discovered until much later had not Cross, Paul (etc) happened to wander by when they did.

Kelly's body was FOUND, just like all the others; it wasn't "looked for".

Of course, silly me. Being behind walls and a locked door is just the same as lying in public for anyone to trip over. Just like the 5th pea in a pod... this one is. My error,... and having to write this in response was anticipated.

I believe that the thread implies that we have a fixed number of victims to use to assess an answer, and within the C5 I believe both traits can be present...it just depends on factors like whether Randomly Chosen Victims is accurate or not, which is what most Ripperologists believe, which translates to random locations, again believed by the R's, ...and so on. He doesnt leave a trace of himself at sites, which seems to indicate some kind of personal organization at the crime scene, but he leaves an apron piece in a place where if unintended, he suggests a return to the East End after Mitre Square, which would be disorganized if unintentional.

Be best to actually have a sense of who the Ripper character killed before venturing down the O/DO lane.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, silly me. Being behind walls and a locked door is just the same as lying in public for anyone to trip over.

No it isn't, Mike, I agree - but then, neither is it for lying in a back yard, a club gateway or a secluded square to varying degrees. My point was simply that you were using this same dimension *twice* to support your argument that Kelly's murder was significantly different - once, in terms of "she was indoors" (true); twice, to make the point that she "was placed so that she HAD to be found".

Applying that logic, one could go on to rack up the score: "only one found on a bed"; "only one to have a candle nearby"; "only one behind a curtain"; etc etc. But they're all part and parcel of the same, simple, fact that she was killed in her rented room - hardly surprising, when she was the only victim to have had one. There's no additional significance or mystique beyond that.

The idea that "she was placed so that someone had to find her" is a step too far, because that was definitely true of ALL the others. ALL would have had to have been found sooner or later, no matter in which one of several variants of an enclosed or open space they fell.

[Jeff Leahy]

...otherwise she could never, ever, have been found, Mike? I hardly think so.

If Cross and Paul hadn't chanced upon Nichols, her body may not have been found until sun-up; if John Davis hadn't gone for a widdly-wee in the yard, Chapman's would not have been found until later; if Diemschutz hadn't entered Dutfield's at that point, Liz might not have been discovered until after Eddowes had been killed; and the latter's savage death would likely have remained undetected until the next morning, had not PC Watkins' beat included Mitre Square.

Now, substitute "Bowyer" for Cross, Paul, Davis, Diemschutz and Watkins, and it rapidly becomes apparent that there's a common factor that links the murders - in each case the body was stumbled upon inadvertently. Bowyer was no more "looking for" Kelly's body than the aforementioned were "looking" for the corpses that they found.

Sam this is rather an odd post.

Surely the discovery of 'any' body by anyone is 'inadvertent'.

I mean nobody actually stubbles around all day in the hope of discovering a corpse, youve a better chance of winning the lottery than discovering a body.

And of course what we can never know is how close the victims bodies came to being discovered by someone else at an earlier time?

Surely this is one factor in the crime that must simply and always be, total'd up in terms of LUCK.

or have I simply totally misunderstood you're reasoning here. I must confess to be a little confused.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

No it isn't, Mike, I agree - but then, neither is it for lying in a back yard, a club gateway or a secluded square to varying degrees. My point was simply that you were using this same dimension *twice* to support your argument that Kelly's murder was significantly different - once, in terms of "she was indoors" (true); twice, to make the point that she "was placed so that she HAD to be found".

Applying that logic, one could go on to rack up the score: "only one found on a bed"; "only one to have a candle nearby"; "only one behind a curtain"; etc etc. But they're all part and parcel of the same, simple, fact that she was killed in her rented room - hardly surprising, when she was the only victim to have had one. There's no additional significance or mystique beyond that.

The idea that "she was placed so that someone had to find her" is a step too far, because that was definitely true of ALL the others. ALL would have had to have been found sooner or later, no matter in which one of several variants of an enclosed or open space they fell.

Ah OK I think I get what your saying...

Yes, I beleived that Jack picked them up for business, that was his MO.

The Victims took them to their own choice of murder place. He felt he had the oppertunity and killed them. Simple.

However Jack must have had a sense of what he was doing and that the bodies would almost certainly be discovered. He makes no attempt to conciel what he has done...

So the arguement of whether or not he gave consideration to the impact of those who found the bodies is an OPEN one. His state of mind and resoning is the most difficult part of the crime to conclude.

My arguement would be that his actions and his intensions are all part of the same act...as one.

Pirate

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

I wasnt suggesting that her being indoors initiated a search for her, I was suggesting that she was not left in a place where anyone that passed that spot would see her automatically. I say this because in some ways, I would be more convinced that this may be the Ripper if her door had been left open...not just unlocked.

I believe the killer had to be aware of the fact that his victims might be found by the general public before the police, certainly not used to seeing these kinds of things, so the shock element seems agreeable to him at least.

And I do believe that locking the door signifies some form of organization, in that he would have had to dis-engage the spring latch himself to have it lock behind him.

Best regards.


Footnote to Pirate Jack: You believe that Jack picked up his victims while they were soliciting, as do many, how then does the lack of that "soliciting-picked up a client" knowledge sit with you regarding Mary Kelly. We have witnesses that saw Annie with someone, Liz and Kate. We have verbal witnesses as to Pollys intentions.

Im particularly fascinated by the arguments for such an occurance despite any evidence of it, just curious what a newer student to the study thinks. Its my opinion that for many, this particular murder has to be Jacks work, and therefore the extension of belief for events that are not on record is present. I dont see that kind of extension for some other contentious issues of these cases, perhaps that Jack slipped in and killed Liz in the few minutes he could have without witnesses...but this is quite different I think. Many people treat this with almost an ingrained knee-jerk conclusion.

Needless to say, I dont.

Cheers

[caz]

Hi Perry, Sam, Pirate,

The logical conclusion as I see it is that whoever killed Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate and Mary (whether it was one or more murderers) had their reasons to initiate, carry out and finish each assault on the one spot and leave the body at that same spot.

That remains a constant factor, it's just that Mary happens to be indoors when the initial attack takes place. So that's why she is found indoors. If she has begun to take work home with her, unlike the previous victims who had no choice, everything else falls into place so neatly. She has very recently been left to beg, borrow or make some sort of a living by her previous breadwinner, winter is coming and we know that Bowyer is coming round in the morning expecting her to come up with some rent money - not a cuppa and a chat. The clues are all there but we choose whether to heed them or not.

The best chance for the ripper to get away with murder in these parts of town was to take an unfortunate by surprise, somewhere she was expecting to get lucky, not dead unlucky, do his worst in the time allowed, leave her in the same place and scarper, so that while she would forever be associated with the spot, he never would, because he never had been before and there was no way for anyone to do so now.

Dead simple really and as workable as all hell.

Heaven knows how few murderers get away with it when they choose, or get themselves stuck with, a murder location that can be associated back to them.

Love,

Caz
X