Jack the Ripper is an extremely rare serial killer

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

John, I disagree. It's a very long gap since Miller's Court, and he is very probably disturbed


No similar, but one is in the open, probably disturbed, the othervin his own home. All the time in the world to do what he wants.
If all the other murders had been like Alice, it would I think be a stronger argument.

Steve

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

[Elamarna]

If out of practice, how does that explain Nichols, the first in the series, where the signature characteristic of overkill is present as are the extensive abdominal mutilations?

Where's the evidence the killer was disturbed?

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

[Elamarna]

But the level of overkill-part of a murderer's signature-was extreme at Miller's Court and therefore on a far greater level than seen in the Mackenzie murder. In fact, the perpetrator must have been in an absolutely frenzy, so in this respect more reminiscent of the Tabram murder. I, therefore, honestly don't think this can simply be dismissed as a killer who is out of practice.

John, I disagree. It's a very long gap since Miller's Court, and he is very probably disturbed

Moreover, unlike the other C5 murders Kelly's perpetrator demonstrated no skill whatsoever. There could be explanations to explain these anomalies but, on the face of it, it's difficult to reconcile Kelly's murder with Mackenzie's.

By the way, do you think the level of abdominal mutilation was any greater in the case of Mackenzie than Ellen Bury?

No similar, but one is in the open, probably disturbed, the othervin his own home. All the time in the world to do what he wants.
If all the other murders had been like Alice, it would I think be a stronger argument.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

But in the case of Kelly the organs were pretty much hacked out, or plucked out.

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.

[Harry D]

Neither Ellen Bury or Alice McKenzie were "perfect" Ripper-esque murders. Ellen Bury's wound was deeper than McKenzie's. Ellen Bury was strangled, while Alice McKenzie's throat was stabbed. McKenzie was a prostitute killed on the Ripper's turf, but Ellen Bury was killed in closer time proximity to the other Ripper victims. It's a toss-up as to which was a Ripper murder or not, but probability-wise it's difficult to accept both as non-canonicals.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I don't think the killer of Alice McKenzie had as much time (not that the killer of the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes had a lot of time) to accomplish extensive mutilations. He did quite a lot of damage in the time allotted with her though, in my opinion.
[/I]

Quite so, Jerry. In which case, it's a sobering thought to consider what the real Ripper could have done to Ellen Bury, given the time and privacy he had at his disposal.

[jerryd]

That's one explanation, but there's no proof of this and it doesn't adequately explain the lack of neck mutilations. In fact, Keppel (2005) rejected Mackenzie as a Ripper victim because of lack of signature characteristics.

The argument is even stronger in respect of Coles, because in that case wel know the perpetrator was disturbed.

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.