change in modus operandi

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.]

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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

[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.