Modus Operandi and Signature

[protohistorian]

Im with you on that. Thats why I suspect JTR had a gun. I think a gun would go a long way towards giving a guy the balls to do what JTR did.

Of course JTR probably didnt even need a gun. Seems like he was able to use a knife rather respectfully. But if theres a couple of cops chasing me with sticks and I can shoot at em? Im feeling like God or something.

Concerning JTRs signatures:

If McNaghten doesnt know who JTR is then he must be using basic signature analasys techiques that we are using today. And he seems quite sure of himself. If he has done anything he has given us a start from wich to branch out from. Or.. Some have dropped victims from the C5 list for whatever reason but I find that unlikely.

As far as Im concerned based on my own signature analasys of JTR Im 100% positive AC and MJK are connected. Im 99% positive on the rest of the C5 and if one wants to argue the exclusion of one of these victims as a member of the C5 then Eddowes is the first to argue. Then Stride. Then Polly.

A normitive person might consider a gun, someone who has the worldview of "I am better than everyone else" need not. As to the C5, I would guess Stride first. Unfortuneately, we have no way of knowing the linking criteria of the victorians. If we except the c5, diversity of wound types strongly suggests other attacks in varying style. If Kelly is the last "ripping" then we have the killer reaching some accomodation in his conflict, if not then torso like crimes would be the outflow of the conflict. Respectfully Dave

[Mitch Rowe]

My suspicion is the killer rarely saw people as equals.

Im with you on that. Thats why I suspect JTR had a gun. I think a gun would go a long way towards giving a guy the balls to do what JTR did.

Of course JTR probably didnt even need a gun. Seems like he was able to use a knife rather respectfully. But if theres a couple of cops chasing me with sticks and I can shoot at em? Im feeling like God or something.

Concerning JTRs signatures:

If McNaghten doesnt know who JTR is then he must be using basic signature analasys techiques that we are using today. And he seems quite sure of himself. If he has done anything he has given us a start from wich to branch out from. Or.. Some have dropped victims from the C5 list for whatever reason but I find that unlikely.

As far as Im concerned based on my own signature analasys of JTR Im 100% positive AC and MJK are connected. Im 99% positive on the rest of the C5 and if one wants to argue the exclusion of one of these victims as a member of the C5 then Eddowes is the first to argue. Then Stride. Then Polly.

[protohistorian]

[QUOTE=Tom_Wescott;69242]

Might it not be more a case that the killer believes himself to be super-human? At least there's a certain resonance to the delusionary nature of some mental illness in that interpretation.[/]

Wouldn't the two go together? In order to feel super human, he'd have to dehumanize someone else, in this case women in general or prostitutes in particular.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I've forgotten how to make the proper quote brackets. Could someone offer a reminder here or through PM?

My suspicion is the killer rarely saw people as equals. If this is so, everyone was a potential victim. Some people were excluded by virtue of status ( job, education, anything the killer revered) in the killers mind, but the killer would be unlikely to call such people equals. For the vast majority of humanity, any small interpersonal interaction could warrant killing. In the converse of the "preferred " individuals, some people (hookers) would as a class be targeted. No real reason above belonging in that class in the killers mind would be needed for inclusion into the potential victim category. It is likely that formative experience set these classes in the mind of the killer.

[Tom_Wescott]

[quote=Sam Flynn] Might it not be more a case that the killer believes himself to be super-human? At least there's a certain resonance to the delusionary nature of some mental illness in that interpretation.[/]

Wouldn't the two go together? In order to feel super human, he'd have to dehumanize someone else, in this case women in general or prostitutes in particular.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I've forgotten how to make the proper quote brackets. Could someone offer a reminder here or through PM?

[protohistorian]

Might it not be more a case that the killer believes himself to be super-human? At least there's a certain resonance to the delusionary nature of some mental illness in that interpretation.

without a doubt it is. But for descriptive ourposes, I went the other way. Given the very limited scope of victorian humanistic thought, yes, it is almost a forgone conclusion that it is a god complex. Thanks Sam. Respectfully Dave

[Sam Flynn]

Within the killers mind, the victim is sub human

Might it not be more a case that the killer believes himself to be super-human? At least there's a certain resonance to the delusionary nature of some mental illness in that interpretation.

[protohistorian]

I dont like the idea of MO and Signature being define as if they were two separate and distinct acts.
The way I define Signature is akin to a handwritten Signature.
The goal is to write your name but along the way you are making un/semi/consious decisions wich are affecting the way the ink meets the paper.
I refrain from imagining what JTR did but I use the results of what he did to evaluate whether I see some kind of Signature.

Example:
Part of JTRs MO is to kill the Women. A Signature he leaves behind while doing so is the deep cuts to the throat.
JTR could have chose to kill old invalid Women and mutilated them as his MO.
JTR chose Prostitutes instead. Thats a Signature.

I agree, what we as external viewers view as the change in physical activity of the crime, often in the killers mind is a static characteristic. take the posing of the corpse for example. Initially, this behavior, one would think, is a means of degradation. In the eyes of the killer he exposing what he views as contemptable and "subhuman", to the outside world. Now let us consider organ removals. Within the killers mind, the victim is sub human, the taking of organs represents how unhuman he percieves them to be, and in his mind, the external viewer will reach the same conclusion through logical deduction. Two very distinct physical behaviors (m.o.), yet a case could be made for both fulfilling a static role in the pathology of the killer (demonstration of the victim's subhuman nature).

The subhumanity of the victims is a wieghty point within these crimes. One modern interpretation of the behavior is that in the criminal act, the criminal recognizes the victim as a human, and in an effort to allay his own repulsion, destroys the most obvious signature of being human, the face. If this is so, we see in the facial mutilations of the victims a progresssion of growing self digust within the mind of the killer, which after sept 30, is at a savage fury. The killer is engaging in behavior he cannot reconcile within his own mind. This would render the gsg (assuming the killer authored it) as yet another attempt to talk himself down.
Either way one decides to interpret the data, m.o. is NOT fixed and the killer is not slavishly tied to it like Prometheus. It is the physical residue of the cognitive state of the killer at the time of victim/killer interface. Respectfully Dave

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I always assumed his modus operandi was by standing behind the victim to engage in anal sex, quickly strangling her from behind so she wouldn't expect it, and then turning and lowering her onto the ground while her consciousness faded before whipping out his blade to cut her throat. Then immediately he would start the mutilations as not to waste any more valuable time.

His signature would be the rippings I suppose.

[NOV9]

. . . and I see not your question directed to me.

Can you link to it?

Thanks,

Yours curiously,

--J.D.

It is in the Annie Chapman forum #93

But forget about it, sense you did not even take the time to read it.

I looked it up and posted it here.

Thanks for nothing.

NOV9

To address a point Frank was making, it would seem the most simple explanation for his choice of prey relates to their common "employment", as there is 20 years age difference, and women who were attractive, and perhaps not so,... among the youngest and oldest canonicals. If he had a "type", it was just a living street whore. Old-young, Fat Skinny, Healthy-Sick, he was an equal opportunity butcher.

Their job has them out late at night, their work takes place in the dark alone with a client, they can be approached without apprehensions...because thats how they make a living in the first place, they are very possibly unwanted and have few family or friends...hence their desperate plight due to no help from others....and many wore something he could use to grab and choke them with when attacking, scarves. Many brothels had been shut down in the East End in 1888, due to a Morality campaign by a fellow named Frederick Charrington...so many brothel girls were also put out on the streets.

Most are not what could be described as robust and healthy, they were underfed, over boozed, and likely no match for a healthy strong man under 40.

No-one cared about them.....if he had done these crimes on Nuns for example, would anything have been different in terms of investigations? I think the residents were on one hand, saddened for these women and their demise, and on the other, sickened that these women sullied the streets at night doing their immoral work, soliciting the husbands and fathers of the neighborhoods. What did a sweat shop lady, who worked 10 or 12 hour days in disgusting conditions to earn less than a working whore would make bending over a few times a night, think of these unfortunates?

That being said, its interesting to note that the above addresses where the whores were, and why, so therefore why they were his "focus"...but it doesnt seem to jive with what we have on record occurred concerning Mary Kelly, where she likely was, what she was likely doing, and therefore how she most likely met her killer.

Best regards.

[Doctor X]

Just because getting sodomized by the Head Boy is part of your rugby culture . . .

. . . that and boiled beef . . .

. . .

. . . and toilets that cannot flush more than once . . .

. . .

. . . and central heating.

--J. "About that Sea Power?" D.

[Stephen Thomas]

Yours would be the kind with the stolen name, in which the players wear skin-tight spandex pants that accentuate every curvature and jiggle of the fat asses that are stuffed inside them. A queer ritual, if ever there was one !!!
[ATTACH]1260[/ATTACH]

Yes indeed, Colin. You forgot to mention the shoulder pads and motorbike helmets. Not for nothing does the entire rest of the world see 'American Football' as a game for pansies.

But take this football analogy (and I mean the real kind not the other kind where you wear shorts, if you get my drift)

Yours would be the kind with the stolen name, in which the players wear skin-tight spandex pants that accentuate every curvature and jiggle of the fat asses that are stuffed inside them. A queer ritual, if ever there was one !!!


Colin

[FrankO]

Hi Mitch,

I dont like the idea of MO and Signature being define as if they were two separate and distinct acts.
The way I define Signature is akin to a handwritten Signature.
The goal is to write your name but along the way you are making un/semi/consious decisions wich are affecting the way the ink meets the paper.
I refrain from imagining what JTR did but I use the results of what he did to evaluate whether I see some kind of Signature.

Maybe you are right. The only thing is that, in the case of the Ripper, it's impossible for us to decide for all the acts if they were done purely as a means to an end and which only belonged to that end. As far as I'm concerned, some acts may have been in the 'gray area': they were basically done for practical reasons, but, as a 'by-product', he enjoyed doing them anyway.

I think that signature acts are connected to phycological gain, while MO isn't. But that would be my definition. You seem to be bring an interesting addition to the table. If I'm not mistaken, you (would) say that serial killers who have exactly the same phycological needs and fantasies, may practically do things slightly differently in the exact same circumstances and that that's (part of) their signature.

If so, I may agree with your example no. 1, although I can imagine that the adrenaline racing may have caused any person cutting a throat under the exact same circumstances may have cut as deep as the Ripper did. On the other hand, I can also imagine that cutting the throat like he did had some special meaning to him. Maybe he did it because whoever ultiamately caused him to kill like he did had offended him deeply by saying something and maybe the cutting of the throat was important in the sense that that way he symbolically cut her vocal cords. Who knows?

JTR could have chose to kill old invalid Women and mutilated them as his MO.
JTR chose Prostitutes instead. Thats a Signature.

Since prostitutes were simply easily accessible and quite practical for the Ripper's needs - they were expected to take you to quiet spots and the only thing you needed to do was show a fourpence - I don't think we can state that the choosing of prostitutes was signature.

All the best,
Frank

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.

Hi cd,

Better watch that Football innuendo bud....this could get ugly fast.

Seriously though, using your analogy framework, I think if a team has been successful throwing the ball all season...like the Pats were..when they go into the playoffs, they will rely on the strengths that got them there...if they are there to win.

I believe JtR had no intentions of losing a selected victim, or being caught, so Im inclined to see the Cut off Air-Lower to Ground-Then cut throat a sequence as his "winning" formula if you will.

None obviously defended themselves,... except Mary, none were able to summon help verbally,....all were flat on their backs after being lowered...except Liz, .... and he even controlled where the blood would spray when he cut the throat...away from himself. And to finish...not one fumbled getaway.

I can see using a long and a short knife alternatively, or choosing different organs to take, or adding injuries never before seen......to that point, Dan Norder has made some interesting comments that a murder including facial mutilations occurred between Annie and Kate, and had renderings of the wounds printed in the paper, ....

returning to the point.....I would think a man who kills in public outdoors either wants to be caught, or for some reason has to, or chooses to, commit the crimes in public....but has no intentions of being caught, and is careful in that respect.

Maybe not careful while excising Kates uterus, but careful enough to escape detection with bloody organs in a square that has 2 of 3 exits patrolled steadily.

Cheers cd...hope the knee is mending.