Jack the Ripper is an extremely rare serial killer

[John G]

Because Nichols was not the first attack. If that was Tabram, Millwood or Wilson I have no idea. However I am convinced she was not the first.

Evidence of being disturbed?

The blood was still flowing from the Neck wounds, shades of Bucks Row John.
That suggests no more that the killer had only recently left, very possibly when he heard approaching footsteps.

Steve

Perhaps, but it's an incidental point anyway. The fact is Nichols would have been the first evisceration murder and, unlike Mackenzie, it still bore all the hallmarks of the latter evisceration murders.

It therefore makes no sense to argue that he was out of practice when Mackenzie was killed, as he hadn't had any practice at all at the time of the Nichols murder.

[John G]

We don't have much in the way of opinion in that regard re Kelly. For all we know, the liver, spleen, kidneys, uterus and bladder could have been neatly removed.

Not according to Dr Bond. Or, for that matter, Dr Phillips, who described the injuries as "most wanton."

[John G]

Hi John,

I'm not sure I know what you mean about lack of neck mutilations? There were differing opinions on whether or not she was a ripper victim. Dr. Bond and James Monro came to the conclusion she was killed by the same hand as the others whereas Dr. Phillips disagreed.

As far as signature characteristics, she was targeted with a knife in the abdomen and genitals and had her throat cut twice. Just not from ear to ear. Her dress was thrown up to her face as in other cases. She was killed in the same general area as the others. I think she has a lot going for her in similarities. The lack of extensive mutilation is possibly, as I stated earlier, due to time constraint. No, I can't absolutely prove he was disturbed, but I feel from the evidence he very well might have been.

The lack of extensive neck injuries is highly relevant because it means the signature characteristic of overkill is absent: see Keppel (2005). In fact, the neck injuries in the earlier cases were so great that it's been argued that the perpetrator(s) may have been attempting to decapitate the victim.

The abdominal injuries were also relatively minor when compared with the earlier cases and therefore there's no evidence that the killer intended to target the organs, unlike the earlier cases. He may have been disturbed but there are no witnesses to support this theory.

Note: overkill, in respect of the extensive neck injuries in the earlier cases, is a signature characteristic because the wounds inflicted went far beyond what would have been necessary to kill or incapacitate the victims.

[Sam Flynn]

Not according to Dr Bond. Or, for that matter, Dr Phillips, who described the injuries as "most wanton."

I was referring to our not knowing how "cleanly", or otherwise, the organs I mentioned were removed. It was a wanton attack, of course, but we have no evidence, either from Bond or Phillips, as to how cleanly Kelly's organs - specifically the spleen, liver, uterus, bladder and kidneys - were excised.

[Elamarna]

Yes, and all the time in the world to demonstrate a high level of skill and yet the opposite happens.

John

Thanks for the reply, I personally place little credence on statements of skill or not.
The fact the Doctors disagreed shows just how subjective such a term is?

Steve

[Elamarna]

Perhaps, but it's an incidental point anyway. The fact is Nichols would have been the first evisceration murder and, unlike Mackenzie, it still bore all the hallmarks of the latter evisceration murders.

It therefore makes no sense to argue that he was out of practice when Mackenzie was killed, as he hadn't had any practice at all at the time of the Nichols murder.

John,

If the killer was the same for Nichols to Mackenzie, he stopped for a reason, that reason may have a bareing on how such a killer responds after the Break. Confidence and personal estime may be very low, there may even have been a deterioration in mental or physical ability.

Like any process, if one does not perform it for a period one may be hesitant when first trying again.
That coupled with a very real possability that he heard someone approaching may have had an effect.

In addition, the presence of what appear to be pointless minor cuts is seen in other murders in the series, Nichols being very similar on that point

Steve

[Elamarna]

The lack of extensive neck injuries is highly relevant because it means the signature characteristic of overkill is absent: see Keppel (2005). In fact, the neck injuries in the earlier cases were so great that it's been argued that the perpetrator(s) may have been attempting to decapitate the victim.

The abdominal injuries were also relatively minor when compared with the earlier cases and therefore there's no evidence that the killer intended to target the organs, unlike the earlier cases. He may have been disturbed but there are no witnesses to support this theory.

Note: overkill, in respect of the extensive neck injuries in the earlier cases, is a signature characteristic because the wounds inflicted went far beyond what would have been necessary to kill or incapacitate the victims.

John

The issue I have with this approach is that it attempts to set hard and fast rules for human behaviour as if it were say a chemical reaction.
Human behaviour can and does change, and IF Mackenzie is killed by the same killer, and that is a big IF, then I beleive much had changed in his life.
He may have been looking over his shoulder all the time so to speak, being aware he had been watched for a period of time.

However if Bury is the killer that all goes out the window does it not?

So the question is are the similarities between Bury and the other cases strong or are they superficial.
There are no wounds to the Neck, the victim is strangled with a rope.
The abdominal wounds do bare a resemblance to Mackenzie but not really the others, it's not about skill shown or not, but there is no degree of overkill at all; and importantly no neck wound.

The probability is that neither case are the work of JR, either could be but obviously not both. And personally I consider Mackenzie to be the more likely of the two. You obviously believing in Bury must disagree.

All the best

Steve

[jerryd]

He may have been disturbed but there are no witnesses to support this theory.

The belief put forth at the time was that he was interrupted by the approach of Andrews. Inspector Reid stated the alley was hardly left alone for more than five minutes with constables continually patrolling all night. To me, this murder was an extremely daring act.