Historical Serial Killer: Jack The Ripper

[Marduk]

That we know of. If the investigations were bungled, if evidence was overlooked, if...if...if...there could have been significant evidence left behind at each scene, and it was missed.

But, I'll agree that serial killers aren't always so organized...Jeffrey Dahmer, for example. David Berkowitz. Ted Bundy. Gary Ridgway. The list goes on...

organisation in serial killers is a clinical aspect

Serial killers can generally be classified as either "organised" or "disorganised". The organised killers are usually highly intelligent, plan their crimes methodically, maintain a high degree of control over the crime scene and have a solid grasp of forensic science that enables them to cover their tracks. They also tend to closely follow media reports of their crimes. The disorganised killers are more likely to be below average intelligence, commit their crimes impulsively and they rarely bother to cover their tracks. While the organised killer is likely to be socially adequate (with family, friends and career), the disorganised killer tends to be socially inadequate (and often something of a loner). Interestingly, some serial killers devolve from organised to disorganised as their killings continue. In other words, they become more careless and impulsive as their compulsion takes over their lives.

it often comes down to wether or not the crimes were planned, in all the ripper cases they obviously were.

but thats the problem isn't it, when youre talking about a crime that has escaped justice by a century a criminal profile is as much help as witchcraft

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, that's certainly a start...

However, he was homosexual, and for better or worse, their murders USUALLY are restricted to same-sex killings. (At least in the case of serial killers).

thats baloney, I don't know who made that up, but theres no truth in it at all.
Q. did Henry Lee Lucas the most prolific serial killer in U.S. history who was also a homosexual only kill men ?

Keep in mind that I sad USUALLY the killings are restricted to homosexuals... I'm sure there are exceptions. (As I said before, criminal profiling isn't an exact science.... its mostly a case of looking at past crimes and figuring out probabilities in order to focus an investigation.)

and I don't see as how your claim one minute that he was a homosexual and so couldn't have done it and in the next breath he was married to a hooker so couldnt have done it makes any sense

Its possible for a gay man to marry a woman for reasons other than sexual interest...

And if he is married to a woman with whom he has no sexual interest, he would have to 'fake' appearances, which requires a certain amount of ability to socialize.

Tumblety had a collection of Uterus's, that in itself would be enough to bring him to the attention of any modern police investigation, how many of the other suspects had their own fallen woman anatomical collection, or even how many people present in london at the time had their own uterus collection. I am reminded of south park where the police find a suspect in their serial killer who takes right hands as a trophy who has a collection of apparently left hands and discount him as a suspect

Its not like I've actually seen the collection of uteruses that Tumbelty had; however, if they were removed surgically then it would differ signifcantly from the way the ripper basically hacked his victims apart.

If Tumblety was the killer, then why did the first Jack the Ripper victim not have her uterus removed? After all, if Tumblety was really collecting body parts, he would have known and/or wanted enough to actually collect his 'prize' even from his first victims.

Yeah, that was a funny episode of South Park, but it doesn't apply here... What if the South Park killer actually HAD a collection of left hands, when all the victims were missing their right hand? The killer might have been guilty of murders, but not necessarily of the ones that the police were investigating.

He got clean away every time and left no incriminating evidence of his presence at the scene, that is organised

I don't think the police had quite the forensic ability that they do now. Heck, remeber they actually ERASED graffiti that they found at the scene. (Even if that graffiti turned out to have nothing to do with the case, its still destroying evidence).

And the ripper's ability to elude capture was largely due to luck. In fact, he ALMOST got caught once (one of the murders may have been interrupted partway though, causing him to go after another victim). Most of his victims were killed in public; no attempt hide the bodies was made. These are not the signs of someone who has carefully though out and planned his killings.

 

[Marduk]

And the ripper's ability to elude capture was largely due to luck. In fact, he ALMOST got caught once (one of the murders may have been interrupted partway though, causing him to go after another victim). Most of his victims were killed in public; no attempt hide the bodies was made. These are not the signs of someone who has carefully though out and planned his killings.

he selected a part of society that would be easy to prey upon and he always used the same weapon, that is organised, an unorganised serial killer doesn't choose his victims and doesn't choose a weapon in advance


and really come on, he had a collection of uterus's which he used to illustrate his lectures on fallen women. you think a jury today on being given a suspect who was in the area at the time with his character, obvious deviancy and anatomical collection wouldn't be convicted ?

really ?

 

[Segnosaur]

organisation in serial killers is a clinical aspect
Serial killers can generally be classified as either "organised" or "disorganised". The organised killers are usually highly intelligent, plan their crimes methodically, maintain a high degree of control over the crime scene and have a solid grasp of forensic science that enables them to cover their tracks.

it often comes down to wether or not the crimes were planned, in all the ripper cases they obviously were.

Have to disagree here...

The killer may have made a decision to go out and kill someone, but his killings certainly didn't seem to be planned. As I said before, he killed MOST of the people in public (almost getting caught once), and didn't really make much effort to hide evidence. The last victim was killed in private, which gave him the best chance to 'work' without disturbance; why didn't he do the same with all victims?

 

[Marduk]

Have to disagree here...

The killer may have made a decision to go out and kill someone, but his killings certainly didn't seem to be planned. As I said before, he killed MOST of the people in public (almost getting caught once), and didn't really make much effort to hide evidence. The last victim was killed in private, which gave him the best chance to 'work' without disturbance; why didn't he do the same with all victims?

Offenders committing a crime for the first time are inexperienced. They gain experience and confidence with each new offense, eventually succeeding with few mistakes or problems. While most serial killers plan their offenses more thoroughly than other criminals, the learning curve is still very steep. They must select, target, approach, control, and dispose of their victims. The logistics involved in committing a murder and disposing of the body can become very complex, especially when there are multiple sites involved.

As serial killers continue to offend without being captured, they can become empowered, feeling they will never be identified. As the series continues, the killers may begin to take shortcuts when committing their crimes. This often causes the killers to take more chances, leading to identification by law enforcement. It is not that serial killers want to get caught; they feel that they can’t get caught.

the decision to go out and kill is a sign of an organised killer, disorganised killers do not plan anything and often kill on the spur of the moment, which is why they are easier to catch

 

[Segnosaur]

And the ripper's ability to elude capture was largely due to luck. In fact, he ALMOST got caught once (one of the murders may have been interrupted partway though, causing him to go after another victim). Most of his victims were killed in public; no attempt hide the bodies was made. These are not the signs of someone who has carefully though out and planned his killings.

he selected a part of society that would be easy to prey upon and he always used the same weapon, that is organised, an unorganised serial killer doesn't choose his victims and doesn't choose a weapon in advance

Actually, the people he chose to prey upon, as well as his choice of weapon, may have simply been a matter of providence...

Prostitutes may have been the only females who would have been willing to approach him.

As for the weapon... the knife might have been the only weapon available to him.

Being 'disorganized' doesn't necessarily mean you're going to go out totally unprepared. It means that you're not going to be as capable in hiding evidence, controlling the crime scene, and avoiding capture.

and really come on, he had a collection of uterus's which he used to illustrate his lectures on fallen women. you think a jury today on being given a suspect who was in the area at the time with his character, obvious deviancy and anatomical collection wouldn't be convicted ?

Well, like I said, if the way those uterus's were removed, if the genetic information, if the timing didn't fit in with the actual murders, then I certainly HOPE he wouldn't be convicted on such evidence. (Perhaps question them on where he actually got his 'collection' from; perhaps there may be other crimes that he is guilty of.)

Like I asked before... if such a collection was important to him, then why didn't he obtain such a sample right from the FIRST murder?

 

[Marduk]

Like I asked before... if such a collection was important to him, then why didn't he obtain such a sample right from the FIRST murder?

he did, attempt to obtain uterus's from before the first murder legitimately from the whitechapel hospital, he wasn't succesful

and from the first murder Mary Anne Nichols inquest report

There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards. the injuries were form left to right and might have been done by a left handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the same instrument."

so see he did attempt to get at the uterus in some manner, from both the first victim and from a legitimate source

that answer your question ?
youre aware that there is only a maximum 25 minute window for her murder from the time she was last seen alive to the time she was found dead ?

are you opposed to Tumblety because you favour someone else ?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

the ripper was a man named Sebastian. the Vorlons preserved him, and use him for interrogations.

"Who are you!" <Bang... ZAAAAAAP!>

 

[Segnosaur]

and from the first murder Mary Anne Nichols inquest report
... Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards...."

so see he did attempt to get at the uterus in some manner, from both the first victim and from a legitimate source

Sorry, but to me, that doesn't seem to be the work of someone familiar with anatomy, or with a particular goal in mind. The multiple cuts seem (in my uneducated opinion) to be someone unsure but with a morbid curiosity.

are you opposed to Tumblety because you favour someone else ?

I'm opposed to tublety because I don't think he fits the profile.

I know some people here seem to think that Jack the Ripper was an 'organized' serial killer based on the fact that he wasn't simply killing at random; however, I believe there's more to being 'organized' than just always remembering to bring your knife along. It requires more control over the scene.

And the fact that Jack would have been 'disorganized' makes me less likely to suspect people who are able to have 'normal' social interactions (like Tumblety).

Like I said before, I prefer Kosminski as a suspect... he was also of interest to police, also hated women, and may have lived in the area. He was also batsh*t crazy, fitting the profile of a 'loner', and the killings stopped after he was committed to an assylum.

I also think its quite likely that, as someone else said, the killer is someone that we haven't even heard of. But if we DID know who the killer is, they would likely be similar to Kominski.

Edited to add: Here is some more information on Kominski... not only was he suspected by police, its suggested by one of the lead investigators years later that 'The Ripper' was safely locked in an asylum...
http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/16/12/786

 

[Marduk]

I can't find anything on Kominski having a collection of Uterus's, the other points you raised are equally more fitting to Tumblety, he also left at the same time the killings stopped
there is this though from New York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Brown_(murder_victim)

The badly mutilated body of Carrie Brown, a longtime Bowery prostitute, was found in Room 31 of the run down East River Hotel on April 24, 1891. Newspapers were quick to report the murder as proof of the "arrival" of Jack the Ripper, whose murders of prostitutes in London's Whitechapel district were well known during the time. News of the possibility that Jack the Ripper had arrived in New York posed a challenge to NYPD Chief Inspector Thomas Byrnes who had criticized Scotland Yard for its inability for capturing Jack the Ripper.

gon on I dare you, ask me where Tumblety was when this occurred

 

[Segnosaur]

I can't find anything on Kominski having a collection of Uterus's,

So?

As I pointed out, Tublety's collection of Uterus's (Uteri?) may not be that relevant...
- He never collected it from the first victim (you seem to suggest that he may not have had the time, but the stab wounds that WERE found certainly don't suggest someone who is knowledgable and goal oriented enough to retrieve one)
- One of the victims only had PART of the uterus removed, not exactly the mark of a uterus affictionato
- The last victim wasn't missing a uterus (she was missing a heart though). To me, that doesn't quite fit the profile... why not collect her uterus too if he were such an expert?

the other points you raised are equally more fitting to Tumblety,

Not sure why you think that...

Tublety was intelligent enough/smart enough to actually interact with people. (He would have had to have been, to have been married or have "dated", or to have been a "doctor" (even a fraudulent one). To me, these aren't the actions of a man who is so lacking in control that he kills his victims in public and doesn't bother to hide them.

... he also left at the same time the killings stopped
there is this though from New York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Brown_(murder_victim)
The badly mutilated body of Carrie Brown, a longtime Bowery prostitute, was found in Room 31 of the run down East River Hotel on April 24, 1891.

There is no guarantee that this was actually the work of Jack the Ripper, and a few reasons to assume it's not...For example that victim was strangled with clothing, something that was not in Jack the Ripper's MO.

The last Ripper murder involved very extensive mutilation. Although Brown was cut up fairly badly, her body was not cut as badly as Mary Jane Kelly. Since most killers tend to become MORE frenzied, not less, it seems odd that if this was the same killer they would become more controlled in their most-mortom activites, not less.

It should also be noted that no organs were removed from the scene. If you think that taking body parts was so important to the Ripper and to Tublety, how come none were taken here?

Edited to add: Its also possible that Tubletey wasn't even in New York at the time of Brown's murder... Tubletee was the victim of theft in a different city right before the killings...
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/washington_post/910422.html

 

[Big Les]

I think we need to qualify this claim about Tumblety actually having this collection of uteri. It comes from just one source;

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/strange-world.html

I do agree that he's a more plausible suspect than most (including poor Druitt).

 

[Marduk]

is it because he had a collection of Uterus's and used to illustrate them on his lectures on fallen women that is the main part of the reason that he's a most plausible suspect in your opinion ?

 

[Big Les]

No - because that's one of the weaker pieces of evidence having as it does only one anecdotal source. It's the weight of circumstantial evidence. But really, it's only relative - none of the suspects are very compelling. I think it's more likely to be none of them than any one of them.

 

[Marduk]

yup me too, its just the fact that he was looking for Uterus's and had a collection that he used to illustrate his lectures on fallen women that I find most compelling, true it may have only one anecdotal source, but the source when giving that information had no interest or fore knowledge of the whitechapel murders, its just the anecdotal truth isn't it.

thats basically though why the Ripper mystery is so intriguing, because theres no confirmed killer, but loads of suspects who fit the bill, I am at the same time quite happy and also quite worried that victorian london no longer exists, if the same type of serial murders occurred today, would we even hear about it, or are we worse ?

 

[Big Les]

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'same type'. Yorkshire Ripper, Suffolk Strangler etc. Are they that different? I think we can safely say that we aren't 'worse' though.

 

[Segnosaur]

I think we need to qualify this claim about Tumblety actually having this collection of uteri. It comes from just one source;

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/strange-world.html

I do agree that he's a more plausible suspect than most (including poor Druitt).

Well, lets consider all the reasons Tumblety would not be considered a good suspect..

- He was likely homosexual, and homosexuals usually stick to killing other men. Yes, there ARE exceptions to this, and it wouldn't necessarily be enough to exclude him if there were other significant evidence against him, but in that case, he'd be the exception that proves the rule

- Jack the Ripper showed mostly signs of being a disorganized killer... he didn't take any effort to hide the bodies, usually operated in public areas, etc. Those people are usually anti-social loners. On the other hand, Tumblety was, in large part, a con-man, someone who had at least some ability to interact socially. Not only that, his various actions (such as fleeing bail, changing names, etc.) shows someone who has a general idea of how to avoid detection. Yes, there is a chance that he's some very rare individual who appears disorganized but is actually very intelligent, but again he'd be another case of the exception that proves the rule

- Yes, the killings stopped after Tumblety left London... but, its very very rare for killers to just stop (without being caught, killed, or somehow forced to not kill anymore.), so you'd expect regular Ripper-type murders to appear in other cities that Tublety lived in, and those murders to occur on a regular basis. Serial killers tend to become more active and/or more violent over time, not less. (And yes, there was the Brown killing in New York, but I've already pointed out how the MO differed from the Ripper killings.)

Yes, its certainly not PROOF that Tublety wasn't the killer, but it does seem strange that he'd be the RARE case of a homosexual who killed women, the RARE case of the "intelligent" disorganized killer, and the RARE case of the killer who actually stopped. What is the chance that an individual would exhibit all 3 rare traits at the same time?

Yes, he collected Uteri... possibly... but then if Tublety was the killer, why did he not collect the uterus from the last confirmed Ripper victim? He had plenty of time to do so. And why was he so hesitant with the first confirmed victim? Even if he would have only had limited time, the cuts/stabs that were made weren't really condusive to collecting the uterus...

 

[Segnosaur]

...if the same type of serial murders occurred today, would we even hear about it, or are we worse ?

Its quite possible that these types of serial killers have always been with us, even before Jack the Ripper. (In fact, Wikipedia even has a list of serial killers that pre-date 1900. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_before_1900)

However, its only been in the past century or so that:
- The media has actually been able to communicate these type of events far and wide (In the past, knowledge of such killings may have been local)
- Our knowledge of forensics and criminal behavior has advanced to the point where we are able to identify killers, and/or recognize 'linkages' between crimes

In the past, such killings might have seemed like some sort of "supernatural" force, something that no human could have done.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

Well, Gilles de Rais is close to mind when talking about pre-media serial killers. It is, of course, possible that he operated under the impression that he could kill with impunity - being a noble and a war hero and all that - but it is still odd, to me, how he had no problem involving accomplices. If he hadn't, there would not have been much evidence, and we would have been short a very important account of how this seems to possibly be something that the human gene pool occasionally throws up. It is fairly well recorded, considering how long ago the trials took place.

I can see how the occurrences of things like this could lead people to try to find explanations like werewolfs and vampires. Especially with people who on the one hand had the ability to be personable and seemingly normal, turn around and do things like this all of a sudden. Demons, werewolfs and vampires would explain this in a way that was comprehensible to the medieval mindset.

 

[Big Les]

Interesting idea, but I don't think there's any need to invoke human murderers given the majority of the folklore we have. It's pretty clear from that it's everyday (if unfortunate) occurrences that people are associating with supernatural means. If we saw correlation between violent bloody death and vampire/werewolf/other creature-based explanations, then yes.

It would be worth revisiting the folklore and historical accounts just to check this specific hypothesis though. You might just find one or two possibilities.