change in modus operandi

I think perhaps the folks who propose that serial killers are prone to change MO easily, not just that they do on occasion, but that many do frequently, should evaluate the MO used in Polly Nichols Murder, Annie Chapmans, and Kate Eddowes.

They are 5 weeks from the first to the last, 3 victims, and in all the MO is virtually identical.

Why people kill doesnt change....they continue to kill for the same reasons they killed in the first place. How are Ripper murders and Poisoned Wives indicative of one primary motivator and a shared killer?

They arent.

Perhaps assuming Jack killed because he was a mad bloodthirsty murderer intent on murder using a variety of methods isnt what the evidence suggests. Its maybe what a Canonical Group suggests, but the chances are slim that there was such a Group in reality.

Jack didnt kill....he killed so he could cut.

Why did Chapman kill? So the women in his life would be dead. Were the 5 Canonicals women in his life?

That would make this argument interesting anyway, if so.

Best regards

[John Wheat]

No Bury is a much stronger suspect than Chapman. Bury's M.O. is miles more similar than Chapman's to the Rippers, Bury matches the Rippers psych profile. Bury is also the only suspect who is a known violent killer and that's fact not circumstantial.

[babybird67]

i agree with cd

there is only circumstantial evidence against Klosowski and against Bury, but Klosowski tops Bury in being a known "serial" killer, imo. Serial killers are rare: men who murder their wives are less so.

[John Wheat]

I'm standing by my last statement there is no actual evidence that connects Chapman to the Ripper crimes.

[c.d.]

Hi John,

You seem to have a penchant for blanket statements. Again, I would recommend that you read Sugden. As far as circumstantial evidence goes:

1. Chapman matches the physical description given by the witnesses.

2. He had a peaked cap as described by the witnesses.

3. He lived in Whitechapel within walking distance of the murders.

4. He trained as a surgeon's apprentice.

5. His arrival and departure from London appear to coincide with the beginning and end of the murders.

6. He was misogynist.

7. He murdered a number of women.

8. He was suspected by three Scotland Yard detectives including Abberline.

c.d.

[John Wheat]

What is the so called circumstantial evidence for Chapman that he had a moustache and lived in London at the time of the Ripper murders? Because there's no other evidence whatsoever.

[gary]

Hi all,

As for change of M.O, don't you think that all three of Chapman's wives being stabbed to death might just arouse suspicion on him? One is unlucky, two is
mighty suspicious but all three!

At least with the slow poisonings he had a chance of the authorities believing
it was natural causes. Albeit a slim one.

Gary

[c.d.]

Hi John,

Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence to link any of the known suspects to the Whitechapel murders. A case can be made for Chapman based on circumstantial evidence. The evidence you site for Bury is only circumstantial as well.

Chapman was suspected as being the Ripper by three Scotland Yard detectives, Abberline, Godley and Neil. Although some of the information on which they based their beliefs was incorrect, I still think their beliefs carry some weight.

As for Bury, he was questioned by Abberline himself. So, it would seem a reasonable conclusion that Abberline was convinced of his innocence as far as the Ripper murders.

If you haven't already read "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by Phillip Sugden, I strongly recommend it. It is considered by many to be the Bible of Ripper books. In it, he makes a strong case against Chapman concluding that he is the best of the suspects.

c.d.

[John Wheat]

Bury

But Chapman a better suspect than Bury? There is no evidence to link Chapman to any of the Whitechapel murders. Unlike Bury who matches pretty much every psych profile, who's wife was a prostitute and it is a known fact that there were no Ripper murders after he left Whitechapel. Plus his chalked confessions found at his basement flat along with his wife's mutilated body. Along with of course a long bladed knife.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=babybird67;97837]It seems to be overlooked that serial killing per se is aberrant behaviour...these people don't do rules.

Extremely well put, babybirds. That pretty much says it all.

"Why no one who is active in their church could ever be a serial killer!" Well sorry but the serial killer BTK was quite active in his church.

How can anyone predict with 100% accuracy what a normal person will or will not do let alone a serial killer? Even the best of FBI profiling is an educated guess.

If changing M.O. is rare all that means is that IT CAN BE DONE!

c.d.

[babybird67]

why of course cd

it is completely frowned upon in the Serial Killer Guild for anyone to vary MO to confuse law enforcement agencies or other onlookers. You can have your franchise removed, and, furthermore, and worse, you don't get invited to the Christmas parties!

It seems to be overlooked that serial killing per se is aberrant behaviour...these people don't do rules. I think they'd find it quite amusing to find themselves being eliminated from suspect lists because somehow it couldn't be conceived of that they might have done things differently a couple of times.

At least in Klosowski, of all the known suspects, we have a man who was demonstrably capable of murdering a succession of women, and that makes him a considerably better suspect to my mind than many of the others whose names are often mentioned in relation to the case, considering also the comparative rarity of the serial killer as an entity.

[c.d.]

Is there some sort of requirement that serial killers have to act in the same way 100% of the time? Union rules? Professional pride?

c.d.

[John Wheat]

M.O.

Bury's M.O. was nothing like Chapman's, Chapman poisoned his wife while Bury strangled his and then mutilated her with a knife. Money was not a reason either as Bury had spent virtually all of his wife's money by this point. Also the evidence being burnt in the fires of both the Bury's basement flat and the fire in Millers Court is surely more than coincidence.

[Sam Flynn]

Bury's modus operandi was similar to Klosowski's - they both killed their wives indoors. Their motivations could be seen as somewhat similar too - there was money involved at some stage in both cases. Two (other) reasons why neither are likely to have been Jack the Ripper.

[John Wheat]

Torso

The problem with this theory of yours is that the M.O. in the Torso cases 1873-74 and those in 1884 are far more similar to the M.O. of the Torso killer 1887-1889 than the M.O. of Jack the Ripper. So why would a killer suddenly invent a different M.O. Also all things considered Chapman's a poor suspect for any of these murders and there is a complete lack of evidence connecting Chapman to any murders other than the poisoning of his wives.