The Ripper's Signature........

[caz]

His MO was to pick a prozzie up, take her somewhere quiet and then subdue her, then cut her throat to kill her.

Signature is not a rigid deterministic pattern the killer is compelled to repeat - it is a pattern we can see as outsiders in his behaviour, since the killer's motive for killing is reflected in his methods. The Ripper was a signature killer if ever there was one. A signature is defined as anything which is not necessary to the killing - and ripping the victim's guts out, and slashing her face, certainly count as signature to me!

Hi DP,

His MO may have been to pick a prozzie up (or to be picked up by one, or to pick up any unaccompanied woman he took to be a prozzie), take her somewhere quiet (or hope she would take him somewhere quiet), where he hoped to experiment on her with his knife and do whatever damage happened to take his fancy. I'd be surprised if he didn't have to learn on the job how to improve and perfect the routine of giving the woman no chance to scream blue murder, while giving himself enough time for new tricks or at least to repeat one or two old ones, before the fear of discovery at the scene took over from every other consideration.

I agree with your final sentence above. I actually find almost all of the so-called copycat scenarios most unsatisfactory, considering that they oblige a first and only time murderer to have a personal motive for killing the ripper's kind of victim in the ripper's kind of place and time, before we even come to whether it was planned or spontaneous, or the fact that all this newbie's insight into serial killer behaviour would have had to come from whatever he had heard very recently about the man he was hoping to pass himself off as.

Love,

Caz
X

[Malcolm X]

ok that's fine, it's pretty obvious that these murders are the Ripper's anyway ( except Tabram and maybe Stride)

[DarkPassenger]

Isn't his signature the rippings? The modus operandi is how he killed his victims.

His MO was to pick a prozzie up, take her somewhere quiet and then subdue her, then cut her throat to kill her.

Signature is not a rigid deterministic pattern the killer is compelled to repeat - it is a pattern we can see as outsiders in his behaviour, since the killer's motive for killing is reflected in his methods. The Ripper was a signature killer if ever there was one. A signature is defined as anything which is not necessary to the killing - and ripping the victim's guts out, and slashing her face, certainly count as signature to me!

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Isn't his signature the rippings? The modus operandi is how he killed his victims.

[Malcolm X]

The thing is Mal that MO and Signatures are not the same thing.

The "Signature", as defined by serial killer profiler John Douglas is "A personal detail that is unique to the individual, why he does it: the thing that fulfills him emotionally".

"Modi/Modus Operandi" is "A method of operating or functioning. A person's manner of working".

It seems research suggests that while a killers MO may change, the Signature is the element that is the catalyst, and it remains consistent.

Reviewing the terms again I see I was incorrect earlier.... I should re-categorize most of what I suggested were "Signatures" to parts of an MO instead. My bad, sorry bout that.

The Signature based on what we can see with the 3 victims I mentioned would then be to mutilate I would think. Killing just seems a means to an end to this killer.

Best regards Mal.

no need to apogise at all my friend, this thread doesn't really lead anywhere, because although i was pretty sure about the differences between M.O/SIG, i was wondering if a fresh pair of eyes could detect a Signature that i haven't noticed......

his MO/SIG isn't present in any of the other Whitechapel murders, although it does make a ghostly appearence with A.McKenzie, but definitely not TABRAM and it doesn't look like with Stride either....not sure about Stride.

A.McKenzie is very interesting indeed, it looks like the killer was thinking...``yes.....no.....yes....no, oh damn it, i cant be bothered with mutilations any more``.........i think she could be a ripper victim Mike, would anybody like to start another thread ?

The thing is Mal that MO and Signatures are not the same thing.

The "Signature", as defined by serial killer profiler John Douglas is "A personal detail that is unique to the individual, why he does it: the thing that fulfills him emotionally".

"Modi/Modus Operandi" is "A method of operating or functioning. A person's manner of working".

It seems research suggests that while a killers MO may change, the Signature is the element that is the catalyst, and it remains consistent.

Reviewing the terms again I see I was incorrect earlier.... I should re-categorize most of what I suggested were "Signatures" to parts of an MO instead. My bad, sorry bout that.

The Signature based on what we can see with the 3 victims I mentioned would then be to mutilate I would think. Killing just seems a means to an end to this killer.

Best regards Mal.

[Malcolm X]

this fixed M.O ( remove Stride) tells me something seriously went wrong at the Kelly murder and this could be a huge clue............

[Malcolm X]

So, did the ripper have a signature? Yes. Only a small percentage of killers cut their victims throats and then mutilate their abdomens. It's unlikely there were two of these men about, and if there were, it was almost certainly because of deliberate copying. Was this intended as a message of some sort? Probably not. Is this a reliable sign? Obviously not, otherwise Stride would not be so contentious.

this is where the confusion lies, these that you mention are his M.O, this also applies to Perrymason too...... ( i think)... many serial killer profilers/researchers contradict themselves over explaining this Signature, the above quote that i found is fairly typical.

this thread wont solve anything, i'm just wondering if JTR had a signature, because leaving objects/posing the body/notes/ graffiti etc at a crime scene (any killer) is defined as a signature, so the GSG could indeed be this. these signatures tend to be seen in modern killers only...my guess is the GSG is his signature and nothing else.

the pattern of his M.O does appear to be his signature, but this signature is clearly defined as separate from M.O by the so called experts

If you use a Canonical Group as your Ripper samples, there are no repetitive "signatures" that are present in all 5 murders. Only a knife as the murder weapon.

If you take a smaller sample group....oh, for the heck of it lets say the victims that were attacked and murdered similarly.. using only evidence as the baseline, not conjecture....like Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman and Kate Eddowes....then you would have to say "signatures" that repeat consistently would be found....and if Liz Stride didnt break up that streak,.. they were consecutive victims also.

All 3 were supposed attacked while soliciting....indicating a "signature" for working prostitutes not "off duty" ones...,....he attacks all 3 without a knife at first. Physically defeats the victim without weapon use,....thats a "signature". They are all lying down face up on their backs when the throats are cut....if not a signature, a fixed MO element with all 3....he cuts the throats so deeply the heads are almost severed, that overkill methodology is a "signature" of his when repeated in all 3 deaths, and he opens up the abdomens of all 3 after killing them to either mutilate or mutilate and obtain organs....thats a "signature".

The Ripper has been impossible to categorize within a Canonical Group mentality. But the murderer is not so difficult to see in the murders that almost match each other in virtually every salient aspect of the crime.

Maybe it would have been better had no Investigative figure of that period put in writing his own Ripper List. Maybe it would have been better had they left us to do that ourselves... based only on the facts.

Best regards all.

[Christine]

I find this contradictory.

What does signature mean? Supposedly these are the added touches that make the crime personal to the killer.

Okay, we're not talking about actually messages to the police that involve signs of some sort. We're talking about something this killer does that no other killer does and which can be used to identify his crimes.

Then we have a long list of cases where there is no clear signature, and it's argued that after you catch somebody you can determine his signature simply by looking for the single most distinctive thing the killer happened to do, out of a list of somewhat random things that he did do. That's fair enough; if you use that sort of circular logic you will find a "signature" in any set of crimes (or just about anything else) so long as the set you're working with is small.

But then he says this:

Roger Kibbe, a serial killer active in the 1980s in northern California, liked to do what is called nonfunctional cutting of womens clothes. He was not signing his work; he was just enjoying himself in a way which turned him on. These fetishes can indeed be useful for linking certain serial homicides, but I still wouldnt call them signatures. It is too bad so many serial killers are rather boring and dont have any outstanding oddities to make investigation easier.

So every Kibbe crime had a distinctive element which was not intended as "signing" his work, but which did in fact distinguish his crimes from everyone else's. So this is the earlier definition of signature fulfilled.

So, did the ripper have a signature? Yes. Only a small percentage of killers cut their victims throats and then mutilate their abdomens. It's unlikely there were two of these men about, and if there were, it was almost certainly because of deliberate copying. Was this intended as a message of some sort? Probably not. Is this a reliable sign? Obviously not, otherwise Stride would not be so contentious.

Not that I want to open this can of worms again, but it seems pretty clear that the Ripper wanted to mutilate abdomens. He didn't go to all that trouble simply to kill these women.

[protohistorian]

i quote:-

``I can count on one hand the number of signatures I have seen in the serial murders I have worked, and I think I am probably exaggerating. Signature is extremely rare, and the belief that it commonly exists confuses police investigators and makes for a lot of foolish assumptions.

What does signature mean? Supposedly these are the added touches that make the crime personal to the killer. I am not sure what exotic added touch the killer left at a crime scene where the woman was found strangled under a bush. Or drowned in a bathtub. Or buried in a national park. On occasion, a serial killer will want to horrify the police or public passing by and will pose the body on the side of the road in some shocking position or do some other insult to the victims body with cutting or writing or object insertion. Rarely do they leave notes, but, when they do it is their way of mocking society and law enforcement. Most of the time killers hit victims over the head, rape them, strangle them, and leave them wherever they drop. It usually happens very quickly. There are only a small percentage of serial killers who make the effort to imprison their victims and torture them. Women who kill their children, nurses who kill their patients, and shooters who randomly shoot their victims from afar dont employ any obvious personal touches when they kill. Signature is just some fancy way for nonserial killers to imagine how serial killers feel about their killing.

The kinds of signatures we see in the movies are always very clear. Each victim has something done to them. This helps in linking those cases to a particular serial killer in a way we almost never see in real life! Wouldnt it be nice if the French Fry killer stuffed french fries in every victims mouth and the Smiley Face killer drew a smiley face on the victims abdomens? This would be very useful. Unfortunately, it doesnt happen like that and because it really doesnt, profilers and psychologists will claim that signature is not that obvious but it is more of a feeling one gets at each of the crime scenes that signify one killer is at work. Signature is usually described after the serial killer is caught because no one knows what it is until after the homicides are analyzed. Confused? I am.

On rare occasion a serial killer will have a fetish that is mistakenly called a signature. Roger Kibbe, a serial killer active in the 1980s in northern California, liked to do what is called nonfunctional cutting of womens clothes. He was not signing his work; he was just enjoying himself in a way which turned him on. These fetishes can indeed be useful for linking certain serial homicides, but I still wouldnt call them signatures. It is too bad so many serial killers are rather boring and dont have any outstanding oddities to make investigation easier.``.......end quote

So did the Ripper have a signature or not, because the signature is easy to confuse with the M.O, i can maybe see a signature; but i'm not totally convinced.....thoughts anyone?

There is no definitive ripper signature. Signature most frequently manifest in pseudo stable or stable psyche's on the killers part. With the ripper, it would appear that the psychology is actively shifting, with the result of methodological experimentation being manifest much more clearly than any singular signature. Respectfully Dave

[Malcolm X]

i quote:-

``I can count on one hand the number of signatures I have seen in the serial murders I have worked, and I think I am probably exaggerating. Signature is extremely rare, and the belief that it commonly exists confuses police investigators and makes for a lot of foolish assumptions.

What does signature mean? Supposedly these are the added touches that make the crime personal to the killer. I am not sure what exotic added touch the killer left at a crime scene where the woman was found strangled under a bush. Or drowned in a bathtub. Or buried in a national park. On occasion, a serial killer will want to horrify the police or public passing by and will pose the body on the side of the road in some shocking position or do some other insult to the victims body with cutting or writing or object insertion. Rarely do they leave notes, but, when they do it is their way of mocking society and law enforcement. Most of the time killers hit victims over the head, rape them, strangle them, and leave them wherever they drop. It usually happens very quickly. There are only a small percentage of serial killers who make the effort to imprison their victims and torture them. Women who kill their children, nurses who kill their patients, and shooters who randomly shoot their victims from afar dont employ any obvious personal touches when they kill. Signature is just some fancy way for nonserial killers to imagine how serial killers feel about their killing.

The kinds of signatures we see in the movies are always very clear. Each victim has something done to them. This helps in linking those cases to a particular serial killer in a way we almost never see in real life! Wouldnt it be nice if the French Fry killer stuffed french fries in every victims mouth and the Smiley Face killer drew a smiley face on the victims abdomens? This would be very useful. Unfortunately, it doesnt happen like that and because it really doesnt, profilers and psychologists will claim that signature is not that obvious but it is more of a feeling one gets at each of the crime scenes that signify one killer is at work. Signature is usually described after the serial killer is caught because no one knows what it is until after the homicides are analyzed. Confused? I am.

On rare occasion a serial killer will have a fetish that is mistakenly called a signature. Roger Kibbe, a serial killer active in the 1980s in northern California, liked to do what is called nonfunctional cutting of womens clothes. He was not signing his work; he was just enjoying himself in a way which turned him on. These fetishes can indeed be useful for linking certain serial homicides, but I still wouldnt call them signatures. It is too bad so many serial killers are rather boring and dont have any outstanding oddities to make investigation easier.``.......end quote

So did the Ripper have a signature or not, because the signature is easy to confuse with the M.O, i can maybe see a signature; but i'm not totally convinced.....thoughts anyone?