Modus Operandi and Signature

[paul emmett]

To take off on Monty's metaphor and Michael's point, signatures have always been a slippery slope for me. Take, for example, the two small stabs to Nichols's "private parts." According to what has been said here, those stabs would seem to be part of a signature; and, indeed, there is also one stab to Eddowes's groin. But it's not true for Chapman, and it IS true for Tabram; so what do we have?

And with JTR our problems are compounded by our lack of knowledge. Some assume that all Jack's victims were strangled and that this then is part of a signature. But as Michael suggests it just might be done for practical reasons. And I know practical reasons can mask unconscious fantasy, but, hell, we aren't even sure they were all strangled. Chapman shows clear signs of it, but the others??

So what then stays the same, what is essential for JTR? Throat slitting? Prostitutes? Each comes with its own qualifications. And I ask again, what could be his signature?

[c.d.]

The Method used to kill at least 3 of the 5 Canonicals seems consistent to me, and very effective. Get victim alone in dark, subdue her by cutting off her air in some way, lay her down, and slit her throat. It may be 4 actually, if Liz was laid down before being cut, rather than cut while falling as suggested as being possible by Blackwell at Inquest.

What he does .. isnt exactly his MO, and why he does it doesnt necessarily define his Signature. But Im puzzled why repeating a very successful methodlogy seems less likely to people than a killer who changes just for the sake of change. Or why a killer with seemingly overt intentions to mutilate specific regions would allocate precious time doing things that seem to have no goal other than cutting, and are not focussed on the regions he has shown interest in.

Best regards.

What puzzles me is why anybody would expect a serial killer to act in a rational and consistent manner.

c.d.

The Method used to kill at least 3 of the 5 Canonicals seems consistent to me, and very effective. Get victim alone in dark, subdue her by cutting off her air in some way, lay her down, and slit her throat. It may be 4 actually, if Liz was laid down before being cut, rather than cut while falling as suggested as being possible by Blackwell at Inquest.

What he does .. isnt exactly his MO, and why he does it doesnt necessarily define his Signature. But Im puzzled why repeating a very successful methodlogy seems less likely to people than a killer who changes just for the sake of change. Or why a killer with seemingly overt intentions to mutilate specific regions would allocate precious time doing things that seem to have no goal other than cutting, and are not focussed on the regions he has shown interest in.

Best regards.

[Monty]

Signature is akin to eating a Creme egg.

Some chomp, some lick, some suck.

Monty

[NOV9]

From my understanding, a signature would be something unique, something he would do to the victims or murder scene to identify that it was him who did it and no one else, personally i don't think JtR was interesting in signatures, from the sheer speed in which he performed his "work" it seems he was doing it for a certain reason, i'm not going to speculate on a reason because its impossibe for anyone to know what his motive was, if we knew it it would answer alot of questions, but from what we do know it appears as if he went out with intent as he was obviously carring a very sharp knife or cutting impliment and knew what he wanted or wanted to do as he met the victim and disposed of them and did what he had to or wanted to and vanished in mere minutes, all out in public. killers who generally worry about signatures or fantasys usually would take more time and lure thier victims to a situation where they can carry out thier fantasy or perform thier signature with plenty of time and with less risk getting caught, this wasn't the case with the JtR murders and appears he went out with the intent to murder and knowing exactly what he was after, he did what he had to do and left the scene quickly and quietly.

Hi jc007,

You said “From my understanding, a signature would be something unique, something he would do to the victims or murder scene to identify that it was him”

Not to intentionaly identify himself, but because he has a strong need to do it, lets say he leaves something at the crime scene intentionally after each murder, or he carves an x on the victims forehead, because it means something to him, that would be a signature.

You said, “personally i don't think JtR was interesting in signatures,”

Jack would not see it as a signature; he would see it as something he needs to do.

You said “its impossible for anyone to know what his motive was”

The motive was that he hated the unfortunates.

You said “killers who generally worry about signatures or fantasies usually would take more time and lure thier victims”

The killer would not be worry about signatures because it comes natural to him, and they would not have to lure the unfortunates, the victims would come to him.

Jack was just a low life, and nothing more than a coward, who would kill helpless unfortunates, there was nothing special about him.

NOV9

[Doctor X]

It`s a pity I don`t know how to quote yet...maybe someone could help me?

Hit the "Quote" button, and you will see the codes. Or, pretend {} are []

{QUOTE}My elves are melting!{/quote}

becomes:

My elves are melting!

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Damien]

Hi

Thanks for the welcome and thanks for the compliments.

It`s a pity I don`t know how to quote yet...maybe someone could help me?

“Not unchangeable” doesn`t mean “changeable in any way” to me. There are limits for every murderer, and those limits are bound to his own psych, physis and his fantasies. But if fantasies can grow, then the murderer will change the way of violation on the victim, too.
Take a look at the Ripper: His fantasy was to open a human (e.c.). So he did. After achieving this goal, his fantasy grew – the aspect of taking out an organ came up. He could have done this with Nicholls, but he first did with Chapman – because this fantasy maybe just came up after the murder of Nicholls. And so he did.
The signature changed according to a changing fantasy. There is a “constant” increase of the mutilations, but those themselves always show the same character of murder and the same way. I think it’s like a curvy road leading in one way.
The signature is unique indeed - but a unique style doesn`t mean in every point similar violations on all victims to me. Most of singers, actors and writers do have their unique style - but their songs, films and stories are always different (I hope), although you would know them just by the way they do their work.

I agree with NOV9: The signature never fulfills the whole fantasy of the murder - but I think excactly that`s the point giving dynamic to the signature.

@Dan: What about the murder between Chapman and Eddowes? Sounds very interesting...and this murder happened in London`s East End, too?

Damien

[jc007]

From my understanding, a signature would be something unique, something he would do to the victims or murder scene to identify that it was him who did it and no one else, personally i don't think JtR was interesting in signatures, from the sheer speed in which he performed his "work" it seems he was doing it for a certain reason, i'm not going to speculate on a reason because its impossibe for anyone to know what his motive was, if we knew it it would answer alot of questions, but from what we do know it appears as if he went out with intent as he was obviously carring a very sharp knife or cutting impliment and knew what he wanted or wanted to do as he met the victim and disposed of them and did what he had to or wanted to and vanished in mere minutes, all out in public. killers who generally worry about signatures or fantasys usually would take more time and lure thier victims to a situation where they can carry out thier fantasy or perform thier signature with plenty of time and with less risk getting caught, this wasn't the case with the JtR murders and appears he went out with the intent to murder and knowing exactly what he was after, he did what he had to do and left the scene quickly and quietly.

[NOV9]

Even when the MO changes

Even when the MO — the way a crime was committed —changes from one incident to the next the signature links the crimes and reveals the killers' vulnerability.

"It lies within the very nature of the killer that his signature will be recreated in each and every murder he commits."

[NOV9]

Hi

Modus Operandi are the things done by a murderer to do his work, e.g. the way of treating his victims, planning, organisation...for every murder has individual circumstances, the murderer has to change his M.O. to get his "goal".
A Signature is some kind of an additional expression of his fantasies and the reason he committs the crime. Unlike the Modus Operandi the signature is a very intimate aspect of the crime. A signature close to the fantasies of the murderer will not be changed rapidly - but it is not static and unchangeable. Fantasies can grow and other aspects can be added. Just compare Chapman and Eddowes - what about those injuries in the face? They are definitely no part of the Modus Operandi, but they also never appeared on victims before.

My oppinion.

Kind Regards, Damien

PS: Oh my god...I hope you understand me...my english skills are

Damien,

You are on the button with signature.

You said "A signature close to the fantasies of the murderer will not be changed rapidly - but it is not static and unchangeable ."

My question is why would he change something, which is important to him?
Signature is his soul.

Fantasies may change, because the fantasies failed him, fantasies in his mind are perfection, but reality is not. He would never see his fantasies come about.
So he may change his MO to achieve the fantasies, but only to see them fail again.

Signature will never change MO and Fantasies will change.

My opinion is that Jack killed only 3 unfortunates in the Whitchapel area before his arrest, or he was killed in a fight or trying to rob someone. (There is a lot of heat to be taken for this statement.)

Apparently I am the one that they are talking about, the one that can not spell, or my grammar su*ks.

Nice to have you aboard Damien

NOV9

[Dan Norder]

Hi Damien,

Welcome to the boards.

Fantasies can grow and other aspects can be added.

This is absolutely true... which is why it's difficult to specify when a certain fantasy would have been expressed for the first time, or when the fantasy would have been developed but not yet expressed.

Just compare Chapman and Eddowes - what about those injuries in the face? They are definitely no part of the Modus Operandi, but they also never appeared on victims before.

Here's a new bit of information on that: It turns out that there was a Ripper-like murder between those of Chapman and Eddowes that featured facial mutilations, and it was covered in the newspapers mere days before the Eddowes murder.

[Doctor X]

Indeed to your points.

Incidentally, you write far better than many of those for whom English is a "native tongue."

Seriously!

If you post a lot on English language fora, use the browser Firefox. It has an automatic spelling check you can set for English.

Otherwise, welcome to the forums!!

Two drink minimum. . . .

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Damien]

Hi

Modus Operandi are the things done by a murderer to do his work, e.g. the way of treating his victims, planning, organisation...for every murder has individual circumstances, the murderer has to change his M.O. to get his "goal".
A Signature is some kind of an additional expression of his fantasies and the reason he committs the crime. Unlike the Modus Operandi the signature is a very intimate aspect of the crime. A signature close to the fantasies of the murderer will not be changed rapidly - but it is not static and unchangeable. Fantasies can grow and other aspects can be added. Just compare Chapman and Eddowes - what about those injuries in the face? They are definitely no part of the Modus Operandi, but they also never appeared on victims before.

My oppinion.

Kind Regards, Damien

PS: Oh my god...I hope you understand me...my english skills are

[Doctor X]

Sounds more like he needed to be in control, . . .

Mayhaps I miss your point, but I think most, if not all, serial killers need to be in control. To me, it appears first the strangulation then neck cut--then just neck cut--is a means to an end rather than a signature.

I may be fixating on a minor point and misunderstanding your overall drift.

For example, Eddowes demonstrates that Jack was not that meticulous in planing his cuts.

--J.D.

[NOV9]

Jack's hands were very strong

In order to be in control after the trap was sprung, Jack would quickly grab his victim by the throat, which would silence the call for help, and at the same time cause confusion and fear, using only one hand to control them shows considerable strength in his hands, Jack would wait until the victim fell unconscious, then he would lower the body to the ground before he cut the throat so as not to get the spray of blood on himself.

My belief is that every cut he made was a conscious effort on his part, and a reason for every cut was his signature, with limited time to dispose of his victim he would not make any unnecessary cuts that would take up his precious time.

NOV9