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

[Sam Flynn]

Why the killer would change locales for his kills is surely an MO question Sam.

I've started an "MO" thread, Mike. See you there

[Sam Flynn]

So, ..How does Mary ...?

I wouldn't want to discuss any specifics about the Kelly murder on a "General Discussion" thread, Mike - and suggest others do the same.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

If we can agree that mutilations on a victim just dispatched by the same hand is something that is a "signature" here....that would be a start. Postmortem desires bring all sorts of potential killer motivations into the mix, including necrophilia, and organ theft may indicate cannibalism. It allows us to at least look into some killer categories and characteristics further.

I think the fact that 4 of the 5 were in fact mutilated after they were killed is proof enough myself. Its something that Jack does, it may be why he kills, but its part of every kill he makes. And that would leave Liz's murder wanting.

How specific his needs or desires are is another question. Is cutting in and of itself the goal? Can we see repetitious acts or themes in the PM phases?

Cheers Gareth.

[smezenen]

Michael,
I think that when we talk about mutilation we must get specific in regards to face verses abdominal. that could remove alot of the confusion in this thread. bear with me for a second here.

signature is defined as something the killer does that is not necessary to accomplish his main goal.

MO is how he gets to that goal.

The stomach mutilation is done to get to and remove an organ thats MO.

The face mutiltion serves no purpose other than to make his mark thats signature.

I dont think he develops a true signature until Eddows up to that point everything he does is geared toward his main purpose.

[DarkPassenger]

signature is defined as something the killer does that is not necessary to accomplish his main goal.

MO is how he gets to that goal.

The stomach mutilation is done to get to and remove an organ thats MO.

The organ removal is not proven to have been done by Jack at all - as Marriott in his book suggests, convincingly. Either way, the organ removal, or at the very least the mutilation, were;
(a) not neccessary in the commission of the actual murder - the victims were already dead when he began his work. Signature is not a special mark the killer leaves self-consciously - it's a sign for those looking in pointing to his reasons and motives. He does not say to himself, "right, now I'll leave my signature," or anything like that.
(b) The postmortem injuries are the key to his motive - and his murders were fairly swift and straightforward, unlike his signature mutilations. He killed them all more or less in the same way, then began his mutilations for whatever reason - to us, as outsiders, these mutilations are his signature.

[Sam Flynn]

I think that when we talk about mutilation we must get specific in regards to face verses abdominal. that could remove alot of the confusion in this thread. bear with me for a second here.

MO is how he gets to that goal.

The stomach mutilation is done to get to and remove an organ thats MO.

Fair enough, Smez, but as I've just pointed out on the "MO" thread, Jack would not have needed to mutilate the stomachs of his victims if his signature had had nothing to do with the cutting out of organs. The boundary between "MO" and "signature" in respect of the "knife work" is pretty hard to call in this case, I believe - and arguably academic.

Whatever his "signature" was, it had little to do with how Jack went a-scouting, how he ensnared his victims, or what they were doing before they were ensnared (which was my primary motivation for creating the "MO" thread rather than have those imponderables discussed on this one).

signature is defined as something the killer does that is not necessary to accomplish his main goal.

It was arguably unnecessary to score Nichols' abdomen several times, nor to remove 3 flaps of flesh from Chapman's. The death of Eddowes shows quite clearly that a single (albeit ragged) cut was all that he needed to gain access to the abdomen - so why did he feel compelled to go so overboard with the abdominal work in C1 and C2? (Not to mention C5.) Why did he sometimes cut the victim's throat twice, and why so deeply? Isn't this tendency towards excessive use of the knife just as valuable an indicator of his "signature" as the subsequent removal - or not - of the organs?

[perrymason]

I think you key to a "signature" point Sam, the severity of the throat cuts. Far more than needed to kill, and bordering on decapitation. More than 1 victim shows dramatic throat wounds.

I dont think that the signature needs to be micro-action specific....i.e., is it that he excises abdominal organs or just that he cuts into them after the kill phase...is his signature abdominal organs, or any organ....is it important that he has taken gender specific organs twice in the signature analysis, or does a kidney suggest he was after unisex organs too...

I think that he cuts into the women he has just killed quite swiftly and for the most part it would seem, silently,...indicates that they were the preliminary activities. The postmortem mutilation activities in general must be considered as a Ripper signature I think.

This killer was not out to merely kill, or rob and kill. They were the actions that allowed him his signature interests indulgences.

Best regards Gareth, all.

[DVV]

Isn't this tendency towards excessive use of the knife just as valuable an indicator of his "signature" as the subsequent removal - or not - of the organs?

Hi Sam,

that's a fascinating idea.

Amitiés,
David

[FrankO]

Either way, the organ removal, or at the very least the mutilation, were;
(a) not neccessary in the commission of the actual murder...
(b) The postmortem injuries are the key to his motive - and his murders were fairly swift and straightforward, unlike his signature mutilations. He killed them all more or less in the same way, then began his mutilations for whatever reason - to us, as outsiders, these mutilations are his signature.

Couldn't agree with you more, DarkPassenger.

Best,
Frank

[perrymason]

Since at least myself, Frank and Dark Passenger agree that a Signature of a Ripper murder is the postmortem mutilations, could someone explain to me why a murder that is completely bereft of such activities belongs on this same killers list?

Even if Polly was a failed organ extraction due to privacy and time, she is cut postmortem. Like Annie. And Kate,.... and with Mary....though I personally see major differences in that blood bath from the preceding.

Liz Stride most probably had her throat cut between 12:46 and 12:56am that night....which clearly suggests Diemshutz didnt interrupt her murder.. He could only have interrupted the postmortem mutilations.

There is not one single indicator that anything more than death was planned for Liz Stride by her killer...she is untouched after death.

Can we at least agree on that....since they are the facts?

Best regards all.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Liz Stride most probably had her throat cut between 12:46 and 12:56am that night....which clearly suggests Diemshutz didnt interrupt her murder.. He could only have interrupted the postmortem mutilations.

There is not one single indicator that anything more than death was planned for Liz Stride by her killer...she is untouched after death.

Can we at least agree on that....since they are the facts?

I agree with everything you said. Plus, Stride was the only canonical victim whose throat wound was nowhere near as severe as the others' in terms of ferocity and depth; which indicates an altogether murderer in my eyes.

[perrymason]

I agree with everything you said. Plus, Stride was the only canonical victim whose throat wound was nowhere near as severe as the others' in terms of ferocity and depth; which indicates an altogether murderer in my eyes.

Music to my ears M & P, Id much rather work together problem solving than just bickering about the reasonable answers that are available now.

All the best.