Modus Operandi and Signature

[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."

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[Monty]

Signature is akin to eating a Creme egg.

Some chomp, some lick, some suck.

Monty

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[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?

[paul emmett]

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

Hi, c.d.

First, couldn't it be irrational and consistent? Second, I do think that a serial killer, a neurotic, or a psychotic can at times function most rationally and consistently.

[c.d.]

Hi, c.d.

First, couldn't it be irrational and consistent? Second, I do think that a serial killer, a neurotic, or a psychotic can at times function most rationally and consistently.

Hi Paul,

Yes, I agreee completely. It is hard enough to predict the behavior of the average person let alone that of a serial killer.

c.d.

[perrymason]

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

c.d.

Well I guess we both have questions then cd.

I think the notion that all serial killers are mad, and therefore incapable of planning or executing methodically is a myth, and some like BTK kill methodically. The method of dispatch might change, but I dont think sequences and methods that have been field tested to work very well needed to change at all for this guy to still have been mad, and a serial killer.

Serial killers kill serially, not always recklessly.

Best regards mate.

[paul emmett]

I think the notion that all serial killers are mad, and therefore incapable of planning or executing methodically is a myth,

Hello, Michael. I agree, and I like "executing methodically." I think JTR was methodical; I think he was cold and calculating--and driven by fantasy. So I am drawn to the concept of a signature, but I find it difficult to characterize one with a manifest action.

He wants control, for example, so at times he takes--possesses--an organ, at times he poses the body, at times he leaves an apron, . . .. Control is what seems basic to me, and I'm sure that control is a focal point of Jack's fantasies. But taking control is manifested in so many DIFFERENT ways.

So I ask again cuz I'm stumped, what is he driven to do ALL the time?

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Serial killers can be rational or irrational, consistent or inconsistent and a combination of all the above just like so called normal people.

But take this football analogy (and I mean the real kind not the other kind where you wear shorts, if you get my drift)---let's say a team has a reputation for running the football, I mean really pounding it up the middle. Very physical. That's their signature or MO. But now they play a team where the defense is much faster and bigger than they are used to. They get nowhere running the ball so now they are forced to pass. In other words, they adapt to the situation. So where you see Jack being inconsistent and maybe not Jack, I simply see him adapting to the situation and doing what he needs to do.

c.d.

[paul emmett]

I do think Jack is cold, calculating AND adaptive. He does get away after all, and if ya keep runnin' the ball ya get tackled. But doesn't adaptability go with rationality?

I'm off to Friday lunch. See you much later.

Good thread.