Lipski

[Harry D]

There is nothing not methodical about gutting women oin the street, Harry. Not if you are conssitent in what you do, and if there is a trait that outweighs other matters with the Ripper, it is his consistency.
He was very methodical in all he did, the way I see it. Same approximate time, same type of victim, same type of damage, same desire to procure organs, same silence etcetera, etcetera. If you can find a more methodical killer, Iīd be surprised.

As for the comparison between the Ripper and the Torso man - if you prefer to disccuss that - the only real difference is that the Torso man killed indoors, by the look of things. Otherwise, it is the same type of damage, the same type of odd matters like abdominal flap procurement, the same type of victims, the same procurement of innards etcetera.
They are certainly the same man - any other suggestion is positively weird.

I'm talking about the planning, as well as the execution, Fish.

The Thames Torso murderer must have killed his victims in private, he had control of the crime-scene and was able to dismember the victims to his heart's content. He covered up the identities for whatsoever reason and dumped the body parts. The Ripper was an efficient killer but he attacked mainly in the open, exposing himself to all kinds of close calls, and he seemed to enjoy leaving his victims out on display. Criminal profilers came up with a 'mixed' typology for serial killers who straddle the line between organised and disorganised, but that's a killer whose murders contain elements of both types, not a killer who switches back and forth between the two, sometimes within a matter of weeks.

I'm not willing to buy the 'confluence of evil' idea in respect of the Ripper murders being carried out by different individuals, but I can accept that the Ripper & Torso killers weren't the same fella. It's not like there weren't other serial killers contemporaneous with the Ripper (Cream, Klosowski), or there weren't murderers capable of post-mortem mutilations (William Bury, William Waddell), so it's certainly not a stretch for there to be an overlap between the Ripper & Thames Torso series.

[Sam Flynn]

It was little short of a miracle that he wasn't caught in the act and, by his actions, had demonstrated a tendency towards extreme recklessness.

The same recklessness is evidenced in the Nichols and Eddowes murders - and Stride's even more so, whether one includes her in the Canon or not. If recklessness signifies disorganisation, then this/these killer/s were disorganised indeed.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive defended the Organized side here too Fish, but I'm wondering whether Ordered is a better term. I think I see methodical behavior.

[Fisherman]

JtR was clearly largely disorganized, if not highly disorganized. Consider Annie Chapman, for example. Here we have a victim who was murdered and eviscerated in the back yard of a residential property, in broad daylight, at a time when locals were leaving for work, like John Richardson, for instance.

It was little short of a miracle that he wasn't caught in the act and, by his actions, had demonstrated a tendency towards extreme recklessness.

Sigh. Chapman was in all probability killed at around 3.20-4.20, just as Phillips said. All the signs were there, body cooling, rigor etcetera.

The notion that the killer was disorganized is gainsaid by the silence with which the murder was committed as well as by how no clues were left at the site, and by how the killer was able to come and leave undetected.

The one thing you got right is that the killer was reckless. It IS reckless to kill people.

I take it you think the Torso killer was highly organized? So tell me why the two killers inflicted the same kind of damage on their victims, John?

[John G]

JtR was clearly largely disorganized, if not highly disorganized. Consider Annie Chapman, for example. Here we have a victim who was murdered and eviscerated in the back yard of a residential property, in broad daylight, at a time when locals were leaving for work, like John Richardson, for instance.

It was little short of a miracle that he wasn't caught in the act and, by his actions, had demonstrated a tendency towards extreme recklessness.

[Fisherman]

I don't think you'll find many takers for that assertion, Fish.

What does that matter - if it is true?

And it is. As many really discerning posters have noticed.

Abdomens cut open from sternum to pubes - unless you disagree?

Abdominal walls cut away in large flaps - unless you disagree?

Rings stolen from fingers of victims - unless you disagree?

Inner organs taken out, sexually oriented as well as non-sexually oriented - unless you disagree?

Parts of the colons cut away - unless you disagree?

Necks cut - unless you disagree?

Prostitutes attacked - unless you disagree?

Do you disagree?

I donīt care if there are no "takers" when I know that there should be, Gareth. Can you cite two other cases where there were this many similarities inbetween two serialists in the same city at the same time? Allow me to make your mind up for you - no, you canīt.

[Sam Flynn]

Otherwise, it is the same type of damage

I don't think you'll find many takers for that assertion, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Probably the part where he was gutting women on the street. Organised killers wouldn't take such a risk, they're control-freaks. So, we have one killer who attacks women in the open and leaves them splayed out on display, and another who dismembers them in private, conceals their identities, and dumps their remains in different locations.

There is nothing not methodical about gutting women oin the street, Harry. Not if you are conssitent in what you do, and if there is a trait that outweighs other matters with the Ripper, it is his consistency.
He was very methodical in all he did, the way I see it. Same approximate time, same type of victim, same type of damage, same desire to procure organs, same silence etcetera, etcetera. If you can find a more methodical killer, Iīd be surprised.

As for the comparison between the Ripper and the Torso man - if you prefer to disccuss that - the only real difference is that the Torso man killed indoors, by the look of things. Otherwise, it is the same type of damage, the same type of odd matters like abdominal flap procurement, the same type of victims, the same procurement of innards etcetera.
They are certainly the same man - any other suggestion is positively weird.

[Harry D]

What is it you find not methodical with the Ripper?

Probably the part where he was gutting women on the street. Organised killers wouldn't take such a risk, they're control-freaks. So, we have one killer who attacks women in the open and leaves them splayed out on display, and another who dismembers them in private, conceals their identities, and dumps their remains in different locations.

[Fisherman]

The Ripper murders had many of the hallmarks of a "disorganised" serial killer, there was little planning or control of the crime scene, he didn't torture the victims or try to conceal the bodies. It's a bloody miracle that the guy was never caught when you think that he was boldly murdering and mutilating women in the street, or in the backyard of an occupied tenement. This was clearly a guy that lived on the edge and not a methodical killer, which kind of puts him at odds with the Torso Murderer.

What is it you find not methodical with the Ripper?

[Harry D]

The Ripper murders had many of the hallmarks of a "disorganised" serial killer, there was little planning or control of the crime scene, he didn't torture the victims or try to conceal the bodies. It's a bloody miracle that the guy was never caught when you think that he was boldly murdering and mutilating women in the street, or in the backyard of an occupied tenement. This was clearly a guy that lived on the edge and not a methodical killer, which kind of puts him at odds with the Torso Murderer.

[Michael W Richards]

The last line of my last post is basically my premise about at least Polly and Annies murders...their prostituting themselves on the night he came across them was the opportunity he looked for. When he was approached all he had to say was 'lead on".

In Liz Strides case we see her talking with men, but not pulling them off into an alley. Why would she choose a spot that was not private when a stable in the yard was? Why would Kate solicit in the City at all, when her supposed boyfriend and every night partner was in the opposite direction? Why would an opportunistic killer enter a small narrow passage to a courtyard with 1 exit when looking for women who were out soliciting?

[Michael W Richards]

Right, but in modern parlance, that would mean disorganized. An opportunist is quite different from a selector, as you know of course, and the Ripper seems to me to have been opportunistic. Anyone who wasn't a little thoughtful was going to be caught.

Mike

I think in the case of Annie Chapman, if he was the same killer of Polly...which seems highly probable, then he allowed himself to be led somewhere off the streets and he also brought something to take the organs away with him. That seems organized to me. The way he approached the obtaining of her uterus seems planned out as well...beginning with the abdomen flaps. I also believe that choosing both Polly and Annie were acts of spontaneity, based upon the opportunity... their weakness at that moment and their active involvement in solicitation..offered.

By using the women who were actively seeking to get strangers into dark quiet places he helped himself.

[Batman]

Hi Batman

Doesn`t this all depend on the intended victims.
Using your example, Radar had to plan carefully, if he was attacking specific targets that had caught his eye, in their homes.

Whereas, both Rippers (Jack and Yorkshire), were attacking a type of person who would always be available in a certain area at a certain time.

Organized offenders target someone over a long period of time. Disorganized find their targets via opportunity. Neither JtR nor the Yorkshire Ripper targeted specific individuals. We know this because their victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They could have been elsewhere (doss money and stayed in). Organized offender victims aren't in the wrong place at the wrong time unless in a very general sense. They are exactly where they should be at the time. They are not random targets.

[The Good Michael]

So, my view is that the Rippers were as organised as they`d needed to be, for their purposes.

Right, but in modern parlance, that would mean disorganized. An opportunist is quite different from a selector, as you know of course, and the Ripper seems to me to have been opportunistic. Anyone who wasn't a little thoughtful was going to be caught.

Mike