The signature of Jack

[Simon Wood]

Hi Natalie,

What's all about what power?

Lifeless prey, the uproar he has caused; the power he feels when he gets away with it; they are what gives him his high?

Please forgive me. You are without doubt one of the brightest bulbs on Casebook, but here you are in serious danger of becoming romantic about the murder in Millers Court.

Regards,

Simon

[Doctor X]

The way I see it . . . is its all about power----the power. . . .

I can buy that. It probably requires one to speculate on his motivations. For example, if you take Mary Kelly, why did he commit such extensive mutilations? Curiosity? Rage? Progression? The answer will color the conclusions.

--J.D.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Doctor X,

Many thanks for the link.

May I commend for your delectation William Strunk's 1918 volume "The Elements of Style". This simple treatise will tell you how to construct a sentence. Or, if you aspire to loftier ambitions, a paragraph.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Simon,
When the killer was living his ordinary life he probably felt powerless -possibly something from childhood made him feel that way---having little or no control over things that happened to him then.He can make that different now.When he killed Polly he had absolute and total control over herin a life/death situation-and he took her life.Thats what I meant by power being the driving force for the murders.[-me bright? thats just nonsense Simon-----loads of equally bright ---and brighter, sparks on here-but thanks for the compliment!]

Doc,
I agree Mary"s killing was differently experienced-in a room and with no one apparently to disturb him.....so he concentrated on removing her identity,her womanhood,probably by doing this he removed any power she might have had over him viz sexual attraction/attractive personality etc
Natalie

[Simon Wood]

Hi Natalie,

Don't do yourself down. You, more than anyone, have taken the argument to a place few fear to tread.

So stop buying into the Jack bullsh*t—cor wasn't he clever, ripped 'em up a right royal treat, showed them cops a thing or two, must have been in total control etc . . . etc.

Keep thinking outside the box.

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

Oh...I thought this was literal...like The person responsible for "Jack the Rippers" signature is Thomas Bulling.

The man who may have killed more than one Canonical did cut throats and move to the abdomen immediately thereafter...so I would think part of his signature is his Focus.

Best regards.

[Doctor X]

May I commend for your delectation William Strunk's 1918 volume "The Elements of Style". This simple treatise will tell you how to construct a sentence.

Curious since this:

Or, if you aspire to loftier ambitions, a paragraph.

is not a sentence per Strunk & White or any other standard primer.

The link will assist your understanding of the word "hypocrite," and why you just embodied it. I would further recommend you gain familiarity with terms such as "pompous;" however, I do not wish to tax your alexia without agraphia.

Someone with a greater command of language and manners than you will, I am sure, enlighten me when you commence your studies of either.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

I agree Mary"s killing was differently experienced-in a room and with no one apparently to disturb him.....so he concentrated on removing her identity,her womanhood,probably by doing this he removed any power she might have had over him viz sexual attraction/attractive personality etc

Interesting.

--J.D.

[Vigilantee]

Is that general or linked to a certain kind of psychology / killer type?

It only covers a certain type of killer

[CitizenX]

Is that general or linked to a certain kind of psychology / killer type?

It's linked with ritualistic serial criminals not just murderers. Serial rapists, con artists and burglers have signatures as well.

Identification of signature has no real value in the investigation of a crime. It wont solve it or catch the perpetrator, it will only help with association of the criminal to the crime.

Even then it's not foolproof because the "signature" maybe very subtle and not always left behind at the scene, or the criminal doesn't carry out the ritual because he was disturbed or there was some other outside influence.

The criminals MO is more likely to cause him to be caught.

Kevin

[caz]

Hi All,

Arguments about signature are tricky, because they seem to assume that a serial killer who was not so mentally ill that he could not wait until his prospective victims, together with the time and the place, allowed him a decent chance of getting a buzz and remaining free to get another one another day, would not have had the same amount of free will as the next person who gets a buzz out of doing something destructive to others and/or themselves.

Why would anyone think that Jack was limited to, or compelled to repeat, one or more specific behaviours, once the practicalities of securing a suitable living creature in a suitable location for his purposes were out of the way? If he was able to make calculated choices regarding the latter, why could he not have chosen to vary the former, depending on the buzz factor and the time he allowed himself? The whole thing is so bound up with guesswork about motivation that it will never get us anywhere. It can only work one way as far as I can see - ie that similar or identical behaviour may indicate the same hand at work. Dissimilar behaviour cannot by itself identify a different hand at work.

If the buzz could have been as basic to begin with as having a living creature in his hands that he knew he could do whatever he liked with, as time and place allowed, then everything that he actually chose to do when in this position each time (together with the feedback from the world at large) may have been by-products of that initial buzz, adding to it or modifying it, or even taking away from it if something he tried did nothing for him or left him particularly vulnerable. He may have developed a buzz for split-second timing and narrow escapes, for instance. But equally they may have been an occupational hazard that he would much sooner have done without but had little option.

We risk going further and further away from Jack when we pick certain aspects of his known behaviour (eg specific mutilations or organ removal) and decide that they provided the initial motivation for attacking unfortunates, or a necessary buzz from each attack, or were even of major importance to him. If everything was a by-product of having a living creature all to himself for a limited period of time, we could be left with a sad specimen who knew his way round the unfortunates of the area before the night he chose to attack one, and then played everything else by ear when he got away with it and felt like repeating the process.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Hi Kevin

It's linked with ritualistic serial criminals not just murderers. Serial rapists, con artists and burglers have signatures as well.

Identification of signature has no real value in the investigation of a crime. It wont solve it or catch the perpetrator, it will only help with association of the criminal to the crime.

Even then it's not foolproof because the "signature" maybe very subtle and not always left behind at the scene, or the criminal doesn't carry out the ritual because he was disturbed or there was some other outside influence.

The criminals MO is more likely to cause him to be caught.

Kevin

Hi Kevin

MO? OK, approach a prostitute, strike a deal, follow her to her place of designation, slit her throat, and mutilate her. Four victims possibly five (if the killer was disturbed during the Stride murder) for Jack the Ripper. Bear also in mind that JTR was out and about on the night of the Stride murder.

Now signature. Can signature separate the wheat from the chaff? Can signature determine whether the Ripper killed once, twice, three times, four times? Five times perhaps? I don't know. Do killers intentionally disfigure the victim in a way that will be recognised by experts, thus ensuring that that particular victim will be accredited to him? If so at what point in the series does the perpetrator realise that he ought to make some kind of mark on the victim to prove he murdered the victim?

It seems to me that there are no signs of signature on Nichols, or Chapman, as I said in Stride we could well have a case of disturbance. With Eddowes however could the killer have realised that he better start leaving some kind of mark on his victims, in order that they be credited to him? Eddowes eyelids are cut through and Kelly's eyebrows are removed does this constitute signature?

Personally I do not think that the killer resorted to marking his victims in order to display to the authorities that they were his victims.

I believe the killer was evolving as the series progressed.

With Nichols and Chapman mutilation to the abdominal region was enough, mutilation of the face not being contemplated.

I believe that in the interim between Chapman and Eddowes murders the killer gave much thought to the pevious crimes. I believe he fully intended to mutilate Eddowes face before even meeting her, same with Kelly. Those cuts to the face had some meaning to the killer,I can only guess what went through the killers mind as he made them.

Observer

[CitizenX]

Hi Kevin



Hi Kevin

MO? OK, approach a prostitute, strike a deal, follow her to her place of designation, slit her throat, and mutilate her. Four victims possibly five (if the killer was disturbed during the Stride murder) for Jack the Ripper. Bear also in mind that JTR was out and about on the night of the Stride murder. Observer

Hi ob,

I don't agree with the mutilations being part of his MO. He didn't have to mutilate them, the victim was already dead. If a need to kill was his motivation it would have been satisfied before the mutilation took place.

He HAD to mutilate them....it was his driving force and he needed to do it, to satisfy himself, death of the victim was probably incidental.

If Stride was a victim then this would make the point very well...he had killed but his satisfaction only came from the mutilations, so he was compelled to find another victim...

Additionally he pretty well stuck with the cutting the throat scenario, because it worked well, he didn't find the need to experiment with ways of killing each victim.

The mutilations however progressed even though there was no real requirement for him to change them. He was compelled to change the type of mutilation to satify his fantasy. I think even the police realised this at the time, although they couldn't put it into the fancy words that psyhcologists do these days.

Obviously this is only my own opinion...being only an armchair psychologist!!

Kevin

[Observer]

Hi Kevin

Believe me I'm so much of an armchair psychiatrist/psychologist that the pillow is sticking ter me backside

OK, five prostitutes all with their throats cut, non has any money on their person, no signs (apart from Kelly) of any retaliation on their behalf.

The sign of a single killer?

Observer

[Fisherman]

Caz, may I just say that I thought yours was a brilliant post!

I particularly like the sentence:

"If the buzz could have been as basic to begin with as having a living creature in his hands that he knew he could do whatever he liked with, as time and place allowed, then everything that he actually chose to do when in this position each time (together with the feedback from the world at large) may have been by-products of that initial buzz, adding to it or modifying it, or even taking away from it if something he tried did nothing for him or left him particularly vulnerable."

...one of the reasons being that it mentions the element of feedback. In another post on the thread, Doctor X throws forward a handful of suggestions to explain the excesses Mary Kellys killer exhibited, namely curiosity, rage and/or progression.
I for one would have liked to see the feedback issue added to that tally. I have always believed that the progression that is there in the deeds has a twin, so to speak, in a progression of the communicative elements of the murders. My guess is that not only did he allow himself to indulge as he went through the series; he was also urged on by societys reaction to his appearance on the arena, the Kelly killing being the ultimate showpiece. It was a spectacular deed, and I feel that it was meant to be exactly that. Had it not been for the response evoked by his actions, I do not believe that the Millers Court killing would have looked the way it did.

...but please donīt ask me to prove it all - long as I canīt put the question to our man I of course cannot. I just feel that this aspect of the killing is one of the more overlooked ones, and I am not at all sure that it is deservedly so.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman