Modus Operandi and Signature

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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]

[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.

[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]

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

[DarkPassenger]

The problem I have with "signatures" is they imply that a killer cannot develop a technique or must always follow the same pattern.

On the other hand, a killer is likely to stick to what works.

I see more trends than signature.

--J.D.

You're thinking of signature-over-killer. Remember, a killer acts out his fantasy in committing the murder - that's why he's committing the murder. What we see as a rigid, dogmatic signature is actually incidental to the crime - a bi-product. A bit like handwriting - we write to convey information, and how we right is influenced by all kinds of stuff. Mine is influenced by my much neater foster brother's writing, which I tried to copy and some of it has rubbed off. When I write I think about each letter and the image of the writing as a whole - but if you saw my writing after the event, you'd think the style of writing was like a deterministic imprint on my behaviour - which is incorrect.

The killer is murdering people because he wishes to act out his fantasy - and in doing so, leaves behind a pattern we can identify as unique.

[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.

Hi Tom - quite true, except that he might have had delusions of superiority anyway, without having to dehumanize anyone in order to prove it.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

I believe that his delusion of superhuman comes from not being caught by the cops, he feels as though he were invisible, and having the power of life and death at his disposal, what more could he ask for?

I also believe that he had a gun, just to take care of cops or witness that may make a positive Identification.

As for his knife, Sweeny Todd could not have said it any better; it was his dear friend.


BW

[Stephen Thomas]

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

Hi Tom

You just gotta make sure that you don't delete the square brackets either side of the post you're quoting. This can be tricky eg when there's a full stop, sorry period ,though that means something else in Britspeak (no idea what the Woodens call that) Delete as much as you can and then zap the rest, full stop (period), capital letter or whatever.

Works every time. Just don't mess with them square brackets.

Stephen

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Something occured to me, if Jack wanted to kill his victims quickly and quietly and strangled them before cutting their throat, then why didn't he just break their neck?

The only thing I can think of is that he either A) liked getting bloody and/or seeing the anguished look on the women's faces or B) cutting off the circulation and then slashing their throats got rid of the majority of the blood in their bodies in a 'controlled' way, making it easier for him to mutilating his victims without getting conspicuously bloody.

Personally, I think it's a little of both. He liked sliding his hands around in their innards, dismantling one or two of his victims' faces, but he didn't want to get covered in blood as not to get caught.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Mascara & Paranoia,

Strangle them unconscious or to death, death preferably, then lay them down on the ground, then cut the throat. When the heart stops no spray and some cuts are clean.

To break the neck takes some skill, do you know how to break the neck?

Not to paralyze but to kill them, remember if you do not do it right, you could have a big problem on your hands.

BW