A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[c.d.]

Exactly Sam. In every single instance where Jack kills on the street, he flees the scene before completing what he wanted to do. In other words, he shows rational behavior controlling his desires in order to save his life. He accepts that there are factors which prevent him from accomplishing his task.
If he is willing to forego additional ripping and mutilation in order to save his own life, is it such a leap of faith that he might have the same mind set before starting to mutilate?

I have to say I really don't get your throat cut arguments. Jack wasn't operating in a controlled lab environment. I doubt if he was trying to win Serial Killer of the Year or even best throat cut. He accomplished what he wanted to do. He killed her pure and simple. It was a means to an end. There are just too many variables that could easily account for the differences with the previous cuts. I go back to my Tiger Woods example. Sometimes he hits bad shots but he is still Tiger Woods.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d.asks:

"It seems like you took one statement out of my post to address but not the main point that I was attempting to make. The question is a simple one...why do you think Jack fled the scene of the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate? Was it because he had no further desire to continue with what he had been doing or do you think it was because he was afraid of being caught?"

I addressed that point of yours since I think you are very much wrong on it, c.d. And in that belief of mine lies, of course, my own conviction that Jack may well have chosen to leave the murder venues without being disturbed in any manner.
I would, though, warn against trying to simplify too much on the point - we could well be dealing with a killer that felt a lot more uneasy at the start, but reached much more confidence as he moved along. Maybe he did not need any specific occurence to scare him away at his first effort/s in the killing business. He may have been very much aroused, and that should perhaps be combined with a fear factor - he was, after all, killing in spots where he could be found out and sent to the gallows. Maybe he simply left because he could not stand that pressure, c.d; but that does not have to mean that he would have had a clear agenda of what he would have done if he had been left in peace!

As he gained more and more selfconfidence - something that is witnessed about in many serialist cases - he stayed longer with his victims and found out other avenues to explore, like organ procuring, facial mutilations and such things. But I think the evidence speaks against him having a clear agenda of subduing, throat cutting, facial mutilations and a complete evisceration of the body, thorax included, from the outset, and that he would have performed these things on each and every victim, given the time. The fact that we have an escalation speaks very much of a combination of a less easily spooked Riper as he added to his death toll, and a fuller and more clear understanding and agenda of what he wanted to do.
Each killing must be assessed by itīs own merits, c.d., but equally, the killer was a different one at each occasion too. Each slaying put him through a sort of metamorphosis if you ask me. He would have emerged a more determined and secure individual after each victim.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

You're not trying to dodge my question are you Sam?

Not at all, CD - I'm just raising a more solvable, and arguably more relevant, one. Whether it would be feasible, in a mere instant, for Jack to hold back from penetrating the throat further than he did is a largely mechanical matter. As such it's more amenable to being answered objectively than the psychological "was he satisfied or did he chicken out?".

If I might give my personal opinion on the latter, and in answer to your question...

why do you think Jack fled the scene of the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate? Was it because he had no further desire to continue with what he had been doing or do you think it was because he was afraid of being caught?

I favour the latter (underlined), in that I've no doubt he'd have gone on and on mutilating had he been given the opportunity. It's just that I can't see him deciding to call it quits when his blade was less than halfway through Liz's throat.

[c.d.]

You're not trying to dodge my question are you Sam?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Cuttus interruptus?

The question is a simple one...why do you think Jack fled the scene of the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate? Was it because he had no further desire to continue with what he had been doing or do you think it was because he was afraid of being caught?

The real question, as I see it, is - can anyone honestly imagine a situation where this...



...could be interrupted to the extent that only this...



...had been allowed to happen???

I can't.

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

It seems like you took one statement out of my post to address but not the main point that I was attempting to make. The question is a simple one...why do you think Jack fled the scene of the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate? Was it because he had no further desire to continue with what he had been doing or do you think it was because he was afraid of being caught?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C. d. asks:
"Does anybody doubt that Annie, Polly and Kate would have looked liked Mary had Jack been absolutely assured of not being interrupted in what he was doing?"

Yes. Absolutely, c.d.! You are proposing that the Kelly killing was the deed that represented an ultimate goal that the killer consciously carried along with him from the very beginning and at every deed, but I donīt believe that for a minute.
How, by the way, are we to know that he was not "interrupted" in the Kelly killing too? How are we to know that his agenda did not prescribe that he turned each and every victim into a pile of minced meat where no single piece of flesh was allowed to outweigh a gram?

Wolf Vanderlinden, among others, have pointed to the possibility of the Buckīs Row murder as an uninterrupted killing. Many people say that Jack fled the scene when Cross came along, but Cross never heard or saw anybody leaving, did he? There is every chance that the killer actually did what he wanted/needed to do, and then left - there is no need whatsoever to accept that our man had a conscious agenda of organ-procuring when he struck in Buckīs Row.

Taking it further back, we have a victim with a one-inch deep and three inches long wound to the lower abdomen three weeks earlier: Tabram. A tentative wounding to the lower abdomen, followed by an opening up of an abdomen the next time, but with no evinced wish to procure organs, a stiff week later followed by a deed where things were taken a stretch longer. This time we do have organ-procuring. But we also have evidence that our man was not easily scared or interrupted - in all probability he was killing and cutting Chapman in spite of the fact that he could hear a man moving about in the adjacent yard, a few feet away and with his wiew obscured only by a rotting, relatively low wooden paling with air between the boards! This did not scare our man - so what would have? And he did not choose to turn Chapman into a Kelly lookalike. He did not even cut her face, something that in itīs turn was added later on.

So, c.d., we either have a progression and a process of learning about inner desires as we move along - or we have the almighty coincidence of allowing him just a little more time with each victim before he is interrupted. To go along with the suggestion of a progression, we have a host of other deeds that point to this kind of thing developing along a series of killings, just as we have an agreed host of experts that acknowledge this mechanism.

So yes, quite a lot of people would quibble with you over this suggestion, methinks!

The best, c.d.!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy writes:

"You know there were things going on all over the place. Privvies back of Hanbury, carmen walking on Buck's Row, clubs near Mitre Square..."

Our boy, Roy, was a man who chose to kill outdoors, in the streets. He was also a man who was set on mutilating and procuring organs - at least the evidence points in that direction. I think we can safely assume that the mutilations and the organ-procuring was the main driving force behind what he did.
He was not a sadist in the traditional sense of the word. Necrosadism has been suggested, but no matter how much trust we can place in that suggestion, it seems pretty obvious that Jack killed extremely swiftly and in a manner that ensured as much silence as possible.

Now, why was that? Well, the probable reason was that he wanted to make sure that he could react the ultimate goal of eviscerating without being spotted or interfered with. He did not need very much time to fulfill his intentions, only the fewest of minutes - but it was of essence to him that he did get these minutes.

So, Roy, if you for some reason need to kill in ths streets, and if your urges call for a couple of minutes in solitude with your victim, what do you do? Correct, you choose the most silent venue you can find, and you pick the hours of night when the streets are emptiest.
George Yard buildings, Buckīs Row, the back of 29 Hanbury Street and the deserted trading venue of Mitre Square all corresponded very well with these intentions. The lively venue of Dutfields Yard did not do that at all - it was another setting altogether and a badly chosen time. There, you could be certain to run into somebody in the yard sooner or later. In the other cases, you stood a fair chance of being left alone, although there was never any abslolute guarantee for this. You choose the optimal kind of venue - and you take your chances.
A man heading for the privvy because of a recent operation or a carman on his way to job would be unsuspected surprises - but that could not be said about anybody joining or leavin a bustling club where even the kitchen door was left open!

So no, we are not looking at a choice of venue in Berner Street that tallied with Jacks other choices. Not at all, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Why do you suppose that Jack was never found at the scene of any of the murders happily ripping out organs and mutilating when the police arrived? I suggest two possible reasons:

1. He accomplished what he had set out to do and was completely satiated for the moment.

2. He would have liked to continue further but was afraid of being caught and hanged.

Now if you think it was probably reason number 2, then he was interrupted (by his own fear) before he finished his task was he not? In other words, fear of being caught overrode his desires and caused him to stop what he was doing. Does anybody doubt that Annie, Polly and Kate would have looked liked Mary had Jack been absolutely assured of not being interrupted in what he was doing?

If we look at Liz's murder in this context, is the idea of securing his own safety overriding his desire to mutilate Liz so hard to believe? To me, it seems like he was following a well established pattern.

c.d.

[Roy Corduroy]

Getting back to the ritual:

JTR, a ritual for him may have been as simple as producing a knife from a place of concealment, using an oilcloth on the blade, doing his work and then using the cloth again before putting it away. Believing that this ritual might somehow be interrupted, he could have dispensed with all other things save removing a woman who could finger him as at the very least, an assailant.

That could very well be, Mike.

politicians who may be just as OCD themselves

Like Adolph Hitler. OCD being Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

Roy

[The Good Michael]

Getting back to the ritual: It is said that the most successful people have many rituals. The belief is that rituals of habit create a foundation for the success of reaching certain goals. For example: a person might have a goal of losing two stone of weight. To this goal he/she decide to cut alcohol out of their diet, and to replace potatoes and butter with cucumbers and a light, vinegar dressing. Upon the successful completion of the goal, this person continues this ritual as it was a positive one.
Rituals can be nothing but daily habits, or habits that have produced successful results.

Making the leap to JTR, a ritual for him may have been as simple as producing a knife from a place of concealment, using an oilcloth on the blade, doing his work and then using the cloth again before putting it away. Believing that this ritual might somehow be interrupted, he could have dispensed with all other things save removing a woman who could finger him as at the very least, an assailant.

Of course this is just an example of ritualism, and we see things much more detailed than this in OCD people and in the lives of many CEOs and politicians who may be just as OCD themselves. Even baseball players and footballers have little rituals that (they believe) make them better players.

Cheers,

Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

Evening Fish,

With equal respect, sir, I stand by the fact that there is very much pointing away from Jack in this killing, whereas none of the traits that we ascribe to Jack specifically - the silent venue deep into the night, the very deeply cut neck and the mutilations - are at hand.I think Iīve got a pretty good case for dismissing Jack on this one, Roy - I really do!

You know there were things going on all over the place. Privvies back of Hanbury, carmen walking on Buck's Row, clubs near Mitre Square, maybe singing there. The non-mutilated corpse is the main difference. You're right about that.

Hi Michael,

If you want another disqualifier....then review the evidence to see if we can assume she was out soliciting that night

She was a prostitute out after midnight. Go figure.

Middle aged Unfortunate women werent rare, dark street spots in Victorian London werent rare....violent criminal acts with knives werent rare, but what happened in the Fall of 1888 was indeed rare.....due to the appearance of some unusually grisly murders.

Right, and I find this plenty grisly. Very like the other murders in the reasons I have pointed out.

Liz's murder cannot be placed within those unusual violent acts....she is killed simply and quickly. And thats all the forensic evidence says was to occur.

It can be placed and it is.

Forum member c. d. wondered if the killer had a ritual he went through, but not this time. I really don't know. I go with the interruption scenario. Then off he went towards prostitute island. In one night he took two lives with a knife. Punishable by hanging if he's caught and found guilty. But you can only hang a man once.

Roy

If you want another disqualifier....then review the evidence to see if we can assume she was out soliciting that night,....or whether Mary was, since you mentioned her. You mention age, location time of day, weapon, yet you dont even mention the fact that he supposedly picks them up while they are outdoors soliciting....a key MO factoid.

Middle aged Unfortunate women werent rare, dark street spots in Victorian London werent rare....violent criminal acts with knives werent rare, but what happened in the Fall of 1888 was indeed rare.....due to the appearance of some unusually grisly murders.

Liz's murder cannot be placed within those unusual violent acts....she is killed simply and quickly. And thats all the forensic evidence says was to occur.

Cheers again

Fisherman, while I appreciate you dreaming up the teaspoon bit, it doesn't fit. Jack the Ripper was a murderer first and foremost, and he may or may not mutilate. With a knife. The victims were, until Kelly, middle-aged unfortunates, killed at night in dark places. Like a "yard" which in England is an enclosed space between buildings.
The weapon, victimology, crime scene location, time of death, place of death, are all very similar.

Respectfully, sir, you are trying to split frog hairs.

Roy

The above part in bold is what I strongly disagree with Roy.

The nickname was undoubtedly a result of his first 2 alleged victims, both were mutilated and "ripped" open. The Jack the Ripper that history teaches us about is a serial killer who mutilates his victims....suggesting that he would not do that is in essence suggesting that it was not the reason that he killed in the first place....something both coroners for the first 2 victims suggest was indeed the case. Those women were killed so he could mutilate them.

Killers kill, Jack ripped. Its a simple qualifier and one that dismisses Liz without much more data being required.

Liz was killed with a single slice....something atypical of Jack the Ripper...even based on a Canonical Group.

Cheers Roy

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy writes:

"The weapon, victimology, crime scene location, time of death, place of death, are all very similar"

The weapon was probably a knife, Roy - whether it was similar or not to the one that was used on the other canonicals, we do not know.

The victimology had the same kind of likeness that it would have had, had the victim been any other of the countless "unfortunates" that lived in the crammed East end.

The crime scen location was fixed in one of the most crime-ridden parts of London, and it was the southernmost of the suggested canonical venues. Apparently, it went down in an area that did not have the same rumour of being frequented by prostitutes as the other slayings.

The time of death lies significantly before that of the other four "canonicals".

The place of death was a yard where people were awake and singing their hearts out, a yard where anybody could be expected to show up for a trip to the privvy and wherepeople were running in and out - as opposed to the quiet venues where people could reasonably be expected to be sleeping that are connected with the other four places.

"Respectfully, sir, you are trying to split frog hairs."

With equal respect, sir, I stand by the fact that there is very much pointing away from Jack in this killing, whereas none of the traits that we ascribe to Jack specifically - the silent venue deep into the night, the very deeply cut neck and the mutilations - are at hand.
I think Iīve got a pretty good case for dismissing Jack on this one, Roy - I really do!

The very best!
Fisherman