JTR as a disorganized schizophrenic lust murderer

[Henry Flower]

And it still does! I've seen girls working the corner of Henriques St and Commercial Rd quite often on my nocturnal rambles.

But Lynn, let me rephrase what I said: "my point was that there is simply no evidence that the Ripper ever did anything more 'organised' than walk at night in areas where he knew prostitution took place".

If Stride was a Ripper victim, and if Berner St was not a regular haunt of prostitutes, his lucky opportunism becomes more apparent than ever.

Don't get me wrong: at the end of the day I'm quite open to the possibility that Stride was not a Ripper victim. However, I incline towards thinking she was: cut throat, interruption, Jewish witness, anti-Semitic slur shouted, victim abandoned quickly, then a shortish distance away another attack with more rage than we've seen before, followed by a dumped piece of apron underneath an anti-Semitic scrawl.

I'm not asserting any of that as *!fact!*, I'd say I'm about 70% convinced of that scenario for the night, but open to correction by those who know more than I. Which is most of you

[DVV]

"my point was that there is simply no evidence that the Ripper did anything other than walk at night in areas where he knew prostitution took place"

I take it you omit Dutfield's Yard from this list?

Cheers.
LC

Prostitution took also place in Berner Street. You have even translated a snippet from a French newspaper that explicitly says so.

[lynn cates]

list

Hello Henry.

"For that reason I think we should always be cautious concerning eyewitnesses, especially in such an emotive and high-profile case as the Whitechapel Murders."

A sensible approach.

"my point was that there is simply no evidence that the Ripper did anything other than walk at night in areas where he knew prostitution took place"

I take it you omit Dutfield's Yard from this list?

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

As usual, we remain at square one. Yes, indeed. And thank God for that. What fun would there be here without conjecture?

But maybe you're right; he may have known what his odds were. He may also not have cared too much.

[Henry Flower]

Hi Lynn,

In truth I don't actually place too much weight on eyewitness descriptions. Eyewitnesses are too often mistaken, as simple as that. Possibly none of those sightings were of the Ripper; possibly some were; possibly all were, but certain descriptions were mistaken or fanciful recollections of something half-seen in near darkness. I think it very likely that Lawende saw the Ripper at Mitre Square, and quite likely that Schwartz saw him in Berner St. (If that wasn't the Ripper, then poor Elizabeth certainly had a very unlucky night. And after being assaulted by one man at the entrance to Dutfield's yard she simply waited there for ten or fifteen minutes until someone else came along to cut her throat...) I'm also reasonably convinced that the Hanbury St murder was heard through a fence by Cadosch, in daylight.

Most regulars on these boards would be aware already that memory changes in response to suggestion. One researcher showed a group of students footage of a car crash, then asked them to answer written questions about what they had just seen. One group of students were asked to estimate what speed the cars had been travelling when they made contact, while another group were given papers asking them to to estimate what speed the cars had been travelling when they 'smashed' into each other. The students whose questions had included the word 'smashed' overwhelmingly guessed at a far higher speed than the other students, because the language in the question had coloured their memory of the event. None of the students were aware that this unconscious process had taken place.

For that reason I think we should always be cautious concerning eyewitnesses, especially in such an emotive and high-profile case as the Whitechapel Murders.

However, my point was that there is simply no evidence that the Ripper did anything other than walk at night in areas where he knew prostitution took place, wait for an approach from a woman desperate for money, and make the most of opportunities. I think it's also undeniable that on two occasions he took the enormous risk of basically trapping himself within enclosed spaces with his victims, and was lucky in those instances not to have been disturbed or caught.

I know that these things are essentially subjective, but that is how I tend to read the evidence. The ferocity and randomness of the mutilations, as well as the risky locations he chose, speak to me of a disorganised lust murderer. Not a frothing madman who kills the first woman he stumbles upon, by any means. But not someone who has planned in advance much of what he does, either.

[GregBaron]

Tough call...

That was one fine post, Greg. Something to consider.

Thanks Hunter. Presheadit as we say here in the South...

Greg I think you make a fair point, and a point which, moreover, illustrates the somewhat limited usefulness of terms such as 'organised' and 'disorganised'.

However, I would hazard a guess that were he active today, Jack would've been caught after the Chapman murder, if not before. I'm confident that he did, by modern standards, leave what was likely a fair amount of useful evidence, evidence that the scientific standards of the LVP hadn't yet the means to properly make use of.

Then again, maybe he was as methodical as he needed to be, (the proof of the pudding is in the eating, after all, and yes he got away with it despite everything), and would be capable of even more thoroughly methodical an approach were he killing now, in the age of scientific crime scene analysis and forensic testing.

Either way, I'm not sure the terms 'organised' and 'disorganised' essentially bring us much closer to determining the likelihood of Kosminski's involvement.

I agree with you Henry Flower. I think the terms have use in modern detection but I think very little for 124 years ago in the world's first large crowded Industrial city.

Of course no organized killer would attempt any of Jack's alleged murders today but when you think they weren't even using fingerprinting he may have known what his odds were.

It's very hard to determine what mental problems the killer had from the evidence. If you think he was playing games with the apron/graffiti and letters then we're well into organized territory. If you reject this notion, the issue remains open.

I'll say two things. It's easy to get lucky once, tougher 4 or 5 times. Secondly, Rob House made a good case for a Koz type as the killer..........

As usual, we remain at square one...


Greg

[Henry Flower]

Greg I think you make a fair point, and a point which, moreover, illustrates the somewhat limited usefulness of terms such as 'organised' and 'disorganised'.

However, I would hazard a guess that were he active today, Jack would've been caught after the Chapman murder, if not before. I'm confident that he did, by modern standards, leave what was likely a fair amount of useful evidence, evidence that the scientific standards of the LVP hadn't yet the means to properly make use of.

Then again, maybe he was as methodical as he needed to be, (the proof of the pudding is in the eating, after all, and yes he got away with it despite everything), and would be capable of even more thoroughly methodical an approach were he killing now, in the age of scientific crime scene analysis and forensic testing.

Either way, I'm not sure the terms 'organised' and 'disorganised' essentially bring us much closer to determining the likelihood of Kosminski's involvement.

[Hunter]

That was one fine post, Greg. Something to consider.

[GregBaron]

Of two minds...

Hi all,

The organized/disorganized war has raged for eons. The debate brings up several problems. Whereas the crimes seem disorganized the fact that the killer got away and left little evidence is contrary to disorganized behavior.

Secondly, in the conditions of 1888 Whitechapel Jack’s MO may have been the best method available. People keep saying well if he had a private residence blah blah blah. But think about that for a moment. With a private residence, he would have to clean up and dispose of the body eventually, no easy task. Whitechapel stunk but the stench of a rotting body would probably eventually be noticed in those crowded conditions. Also, if caught with a body in the house it’s over but leaving it on the street creates no such risk.

The idea of taking a prostitute home and murdering and mutilating her brings up a whole new set of problems. Imagine if the killer lived at 13 Miller’s Court, how are you going to get that mess cleaned up before the rent man comes calling? I’m not sure I’m saying this very well but murdering and mutilating on the street might be the most organized thing a poor working class psycho could possibly do! Or maybe not…

That’s the problem; both sides of the argument can be asserted from the limited evidence. If it wasn’t for the mutilations we wouldn’t be having this debate. It seems the mutilations scream disorganized while the liaison and escape whisper organized. Maybe he really was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde…



Greg

[lynn cates]

variation

Hello Henry. Do you have a good theory about why those descriptions varied so much?

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

So you think the Ripper simply went out with a knife and butchered the first woman who took him behind a corner...and did this repeatedly without ever being spotted in the act, or questioned into confessing...and did so repeatedly? You'll fit in with a great number of the minimalists on these boards, Mr. Pilate. They share your faith in luck and coincidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom, many would say that the Ripper WAS spotted - beginning one of his assaults in Berner St, and having been spotted he abandoned the mutilations and headed towards Mitre Square. Did he plan to be spotted? Did he plan to begin an assault in such an absurdly risky location? I'd say he was more likely disorganised, taking his opportunities where he could.

He may also have been seen talking to Chapman before her murder, and was very probably spotted by Lawende with Eddowes - possibly well enough for Lawende to have potentially identified him.

So he was spotted beginning one of his five murders, he was witnessed with at least two of the other victims, and killed two of the five in locations from which escape would've been almost impossible had he not been so lucky as to remain undisturbed. He killed Chapman in an enclosed back yard, as daylight was breaking, (having been seen talking with her in the street) and his assault was heard from the other side of a rickety fence. If any of that was the result of his careful planning then he must have been the dullest tool in the box.

None of that speaks of an organised killer. I think his preparation consisted of knowing the area well, knowing where to find victims, and having a knife. I think he was just tremendously flukey.

[Pontius2000]

Pontius,

The 1990's called and they want their buzz words and antiquated 'profiling' terminology back.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There you go. In virtually every thread you are criticizing profiling and categorizing of killers etc. What exactly are your credentials to make such claims? None of these things work 100% of the time. But these people actually researched, studied, and interviewed dozens and dozens of serial killers. You make them out to be carnival workers guessing people's birthdays, and they're not.

[Pontius2000]

or perhaps they just dont agree with your view that he was a disorganized killer or that those categories are even valid and having nothing to do with whether they have a "romanticized" (whatever that means) view or not.

Thanks for the responses Pontius-I dont agree with you but I respect your opinion and understand your point and as i said in my previous post i am going to drop out of this discussion at this point.

Not every single killer will fit every single trait of a type killer. but most of them do fit pretty firmly in one or the other. Just like many people think profiling is a farce even though the profiles are generally right in most cases.

and yes, I do think many people have an overly romanticized view of JTR, they don't want to see him as a schizophrenic who ate out of gutters. to me, it's pretty clear as many also have an overly romanticized view of Mary Kelly because a couple people said she was somewhat attractive. people want to believe she was this beautiful Julia Roberts from "Pretty Woman" prostitute killed by a suave monster in a tophat with a shiny black bag or any of the other theories that are far less plausible than a below-average intelligence, disorganized schizophrenic who ate out of gutters and masterbated compulsively.

[Tom_Wescott]

Pontius,

The 1990's called and they want their buzz words and antiquated 'profiling' terminology back.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

no, we don't know if they were by the same hand or not. most people believe they were two or more different killers. I myself have gone back and forth on Elizabeth Jackson's potential candidacy as a JTR victim. but there's no doubt that the torso murders were more organized that the recognized JTR murders.

Ted Bundy is widely agreed upon to be an organized killer, one of the most organized ever in fact. it's believed that he began killing in the 60s and those murders are not solved, which would be more organized murders, or as he said himself, before he was in his "prime" as a killer. the Florida killings were less organized than most of his other killings, but not completely disorganized either.

I did mention in a previous post in this thread that JTR was either disorganized, or at best, mixed. however, I don't agree at all that the crimes were organized or completely organized. I think that's more people wanting JTR to be something he was not to meet their romanticized view of him.

or perhaps they just dont agree with your view that he was a disorganized killer or that those categories are even valid and having nothing to do with whether they have a "romanticized" (whatever that means) view or not.

Thanks for the responses Pontius-I dont agree with you but I respect your opinion and understand your point and as i said in my previous post i am going to drop out of this discussion at this point.