change in modus operandi

[Natalie Severn]

I was not as you put it sorting killers into wife killers but sorting killers by M.O. Surely looking closely at a killer with an M.O. almost identical to an M.O. used in unsolved crimes is sensible. I think you'll find that serious crime squads when they have a serial killer on there hands look at unsolved murders with similar M.O.'s routinely. You also mention two serial killers operating in Whitechapel in 1888. I think you'll find that might be three if you consider the Torso Killer.

MO can and does change.I know there are certain traits that run through murder crimes indicating there is often an underlying obsessive compulsive disorder that manifests itself in such cases as an "MO".But this can change as in the case of Robert Napper currently serving life in Broadmoor-he was both an open air "frenzied" knife attacker-similar attacks to case of Martha Tabram/but he was also an "indoor" Millers Court type murderer/dismemberer,having patiently "stalked" his prey,Samantha Bisset, for many months previously.
I believe the Torso killer of 1888/89 and Jack the Ripper were probably one and the same.

[John Wheat]

M.O.

I was not as you put it sorting killers into wife killers but sorting killers by M.O. Surely looking closely at a killer with an M.O. almost identical to an M.O. used in unsolved crimes is sensible. I think you'll find that serious crime squads when they have a serial killer on there hands look at unsolved murders with similar M.O.'s routinely. You also mention two serial killers operating in Whitechapel in 1888. I think you'll find that might be three if you consider the Torso Killer.

[Natalie Severn]

Serial killers are thankfully extremely rare per percentage of population.Therefore for two to have been operating in Whitechapel in 1888 seems quite unusual of itself,though not, I admit ,impossible.
Moreover,the sorting such killers into specific categories such as "wife killers" and "non wife killers"---is statistically unsound, especially when we have men such as Christie and a number of other serial killers who were both wife killers and killers of females with whom they had no close ties.
Likewise, labelling and compartmentalising such a tiny section of society- proportionally that is, appears to lack any creditable statistical analysis or mass of firmly grounded evidence.
Without such a sound mass of statistical evidence, profilers claiming they are able to understand the mind of serial killers can amount to little more than dogma or worse,a form of quackery or charlatanism.
Best
Norma

[John Wheat]

Changing Modus Operandi

It's rare that a serial killer changes there modus operandi considerably and that a serial killer would change from being a serial killer who strangles and then mutilates prostitutes to one who poisons wives seems highly unlikely. If your going to go on about a wife murderer who could be Jack the Ripper atleast talk about one with a very similar modus operandi e.g. W.H. Bury

[Sam Flynn]

Actually Sam,Chapman was indeed up to his elbows in faeces during the murders of all three of his "known" victims.

p ------------------ o ------------------ i ----------------- n ------------------- t



Just seeing if I could stretch a point further than the one you made, Nats. I admit defeat

[Natalie Severn]

Actually Sam,Chapman was indeed up to his elbows in faeces during the murders of all three of his "known" victims.Each of them suffered daily bouts of vomiting and diarrhea,as well as each crying out in agony during their last days.Chapman appears to have enjoyed going into great detail about all this to their relatives, the staff at the pub,their doctors, friends etc ,all the while actively plying his victims with the very poison that intensified their suffering.I cant see anything remotely "passive" about his actions and all of the killing was done in both in public and with the same daring and "catch me if you can" bravado as was in evidence in the earlier 1888 Whitechapel killings.......aptly illustrated when he told Lucy Baderski"s sister he "could give her a bit just like that" and 50 doctors would never find out!

[Sam Flynn]

taking photos of someone enduring pain not caused directly by the participant but in this case a third part source seems to me an inactive role....hence, passive.

Plus... you're not in the open with someone else's blood and poop on your hands, with vigilance groups and a reinforced police force looking out for you.

I think it falls into the realm of torturing myself. Their suffering was not so great as to make him leave the room (passive response), it inspired him to take photo's ( decidedly impassive response) Respectfully Dave

I guess actively inflicting pain is what Im getting at here....taking photos of someone enduring pain not caused directly by the participant but in this case a third part source seems to me an inactive role....hence, passive. Mean spirited surely...but aggressive evil?...I dont see it.

Course Im just a layman, but that makes sense to me.

All the best Dave

[protohistorian]

I think it falls into the realm of torturing myself. Their suffering was not so great as to make him leave the room (passive response), it inspired him to take photo's ( decidedly impassive response) Respectfully Dave

poisoning is not passive when your photographing the victims suffering. Respectfully Dave

Hi Dave,

Id disagree with that,....thats witnessing, not aggressively controlling. Which is passive in comparison.

My example might be A man chokes a woman while his accomplice just watches.....the witness would be just as evil as the murderer, but in passive form.

All the best Dave

[protohistorian]

poisoning is not passive when your photographing the victims suffering. Respectfully Dave

Hi Nats,

I think what we have here are a few killers over the course of the 1888-1896 timeframe that we know of....some had their victims wrongly assumed or thought to be Jack the Ripper victims, the Canonicals, and some men that killed for very different reasons that the reason it appears Polly and Annie were killed for. Jack may well have committed other crimes during that period, or before, or after it. But Polly and Annie were unique acts.

I would certainly place Chapman among a group of those brutal men who would kill just for pleasure, but I wouldnt put him in with a much more dangerous lone man that killed for other reasons.

The only 2 victims I personally can be fairly comfortable with as being Jack the Rippers victims are Mary Ann and Annie. I would think Kate is a very viable 3rd, if not for some troubling circumstantial aspects of that murder.

Those are specific acts. Poisoning is passive evil....Jack the Ripper was not.

All the best Nats, hope all is well.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Michael,
In 1902/3 when Chapman was caught ,the police didnt carry out searches of the numerous previous lodgings Chapman had lived in,only the Pub in Southwark appears to have been gone over,where the murder of his last victim took place.This wouldnt be the case today----most of the previous living quarters as well as any cellars,gardens etc are now investigated.So for all we know Chapman could have begun slaughtering women soon after he arrived from Poland in 1887 or 1888.Had he been the Whitechapel murderer in 1888 he could have lain low for a bit in the early part of 1889 since the net had begun to close around him and his high risk killings before he had another go at torso dismemberment ,dumping part of the remains in September 1889 in Pinchin Street across the road from where he was then living .He may have come close to getting caught when he opted for another jtr type murder.He was living round the corner from Swallow Gardens where Frances Coles was murdered in 1891 since it was only a few months before he and Lucy his wife set sail for America----after which no such murders were discovered in England [ but actually for all we know he continued murdering and mutilating right up to his capture in 1902----he just didnt get caught].Like Christie and others,he may have murdered his wives when they got in the way of his real obsession-for example when he needed to bring a woman engaged in prostitution back to his pub and they would have protested.
Michael---its not true to say his motive was gain.....his last bride and final victim Maud,owned nothing was the daughter of a labourer and was eighteen years old.Like Caz says, he needed total control and this he got whichever way he fancied taking life.He was skilled with both the knife and poison-he may have liked practising both!
As far as your question about the type of women he chose .....who knows who turned him on and why?
Best
Norma

[Sam Flynn]

Many thanks for making the context clearer. I can see now how “la de da then” can be interpreted...

It was, of course interpreted in the form of a song, Caz - click link.

That song, "Lardy Dah" was a smash hit in the 1880s and it really caught on, albeit with spelt slightly differently on the original sheet music. The chorus went:

He wears a penny flower in his coat, Lardy-dah!
And a penny paper collar round his throat, Lardy-dah!
In his hand a penny stick,
In his tooth a penny pick,
And a penny in his pocket
Lardy-dah! Lardy-dah!
And a penny in his pocket, Lardy-dah!

Hi Nats,

I agree with you that there is research that supports killers changing MO to escape "obvious attributions" to themselves, or based on the circumstances of the moments.....but in this case the most glaring unanswered question on Chapman is why would he have killed poor street whores?

There was nothing in it for him killing poor strangers...save the killing itself. But killing wives has many possible motivations, ...at least one of which is present in Chapmans case, by committing murder, he acquired a business.

If he killed the strangers "for fun" with knives and warm blood and fear and adreneline, then I dont see those urges just transforming into "kill for gain" by slowly poisoning.

Jack must have liked what he did...or needed to do what he did to strangers.....Chapman clearly wanted to kill his wives.

Cheers Nats