The Ripper's MO....

[Sam Flynn]

Now back to my original reply. Signature can happen before the kill. If a killer ties his victim up then carves a pentagram into his stomach before killing him.

Quite so - but the important thing there is that the killer leaves a mark, ergo "signature". These marks, where documented, are distinct and tangible and can be discussed with some degree of objectivity.

The problem is that "signature" threads too often become derailed by subjective opinions of what the killer might have done before leaving his mark - how he went about catching his prey. It's this latter that constitutes his MO. Whether a killer picks up a victim in his car, walks in through an open door, climbs in through an open window, pounces on the victim, or "smooth-talks" him/her into a false sense of security are quite separate from the marks the killer leaves behind. All these elements constitute his "mode of operating", or (in Latin) his modus operandi.

Because we can only speculate on these things (we're on much more specific ground with "signature"), any incursion of "MO" talk into any thread can throw it wildly off course - which is why I thought it best to give "MO" its own thread. Clearly it was an act of futile optimism on my part, because - irony of ironies! - this MO thread is now going full-tilt at discussing the wounds, which are quite categorically matters of signature!

I sure would hate to have to write a concordance to this site

[Malcolm X]

slashed bed sheets, defensive cuts and a cry of ``oh murder`` ( maybe)

this tells you:-

1.....that JTR was out of bed and dressed
2.....that MARY saw him attacking from range
3.....it was not totally dark in there, there was a light source

but ``all was silent and there was no light from no 13``...oh dear oh dear, yet something else to consider

so with regards to No 3, Blotchy either lit a candle to dress .... or JTR disturbed her opening the door comming in.... because if JTR was Blotchy; he did not attack her in pitch blackness, because she would not have seen it comming......all she would've noticed, is a pair of cold hands suddenly around her throat; as she was thinking, ``he's leaning over me to kiss me goodbye``

put a candle on to dress, blow the candle out before leaving, stroll over to kiss Kelly goodbye and grab her throat...or kill her while in bed with her.

but no, not at all.... he went crazy with a knife first and she saw it comming, i'm sorry no way Hose'; there's no need to even get his knife out is there!....

that's enough, i'm repeating myself like crazy.

[Malcolm X]

Because we can only speculate on these things (we're on much more specific ground with "signature"), any incursion of "MO" talk into any thread can throw it wildly off course - which is why I thought it best to give "MO" its own thread. Clearly it was an act of futile optimism on my part, because - irony of ironies! - this MO thread is now going full-tilt at discussing the wounds, which are quite categorically matters of signature!

I sure would hate to have to write a concordance to this site

`` A signature is different from a modus operandi, (mode of operation, MO) the way they find, overpower, and kill a victim without getting caught. The MO changes as the killer refines their methods.``

no Sam, how he kills is the M.O, (strangling and cutting the throat).... please read above and this is mentioned elsewhere online too... the later mutilations are the Sig..... i've mentioned here mainly his M.O.... but it is very confusing indeed.

i've had to mention everything else to try and explain this shift in M.O, but the basic thread is still on track..... his M.O is bound to be different anyway because this murder is indoors and all the rest outside....... but it still reeks of JTR

[Sam Flynn]

`` A signature is different from a modus operandi, (mode of operation, MO) the way they find, overpower, and kill a victim without getting caught. The MO changes as the killer refines their methods.``

no Sam, how he kills is the M.O, (strangling and cutting the throat)....

I don't disagree, Mal - but you'll note that your definition includes "the way they find [and] overpower a victim". It's these "preliminary" elements that are the most speculative, and why I opened this discussion - namely, to siphon off speculative discourses on those "preliminary" elements from the much more specific "signature/wounds" thread from which this one was spawned.

We all know the details of the cut throats and mutilations, so please let's try to keep them out of this discussion.

[Malcolm X]

I don't disagree, Mal - but you'll note that your definition includes "the way they find [and] overpower a victim". It's these "preliminary" elements that are the most speculative, and why I opened this discussion - namely, to siphon off speculative discourses on those "preliminary" elements from the much more specific "signature/wounds" thread from which this one was spawned.

We all know the details of the cut throats and mutilations, so please let's try to keep them out of this discussion.

yes ok, but you'll notice that i'm only focusing now on....``why did he attack her with a knife first``...i couldn't give a damn about afterwards.

it's, is this Blotchy or a break in, due to this switch in M.O and why did he switch M.O...which means i have to discuss; all about him being either in that room all night, or breaking in.

i cant constrain this thread to M.O only, because somebody will post in talking about COX/LEWIS etc....so i have to reply in kind

[smezenen]

this MO thread is now going full-tilt at discussing the wounds, which are quite categorically matters of signature!

If the wounds where made to access the organs (abdominal mutilation) then they are MO
If they are not needed for the primary purpose of the crime (facial cutting) then they are signature

it maters not what thread we are on wounds can be discussed becouse they can be either depending on the purpose of the murder.

Im sorry if you feel I have derailed your thread but I was only trying to respond to questions with logical answers.

[smezenen]

1.....that JTR was out of bed and dressed
2.....that MARY saw him attacking from range
3.....it was not totally dark in there, there was a light source

Malcolm,
1 Who saw him dressed(speculation) Where is your evidence? I know nothing says he was naked either but the point is its speculation to say he was dressed, or that he got up and got dressed. Would he even need to?

2 If Mary saw him attacking from range (speculation) is there any evidence of this other than cut sheets and defensive wounds becouse those where done at close range and can not therfore prove where the attack began.

3 The light from the glowing fire could light the room enough to see around inside but not show thru a window with a curtin drawn over it.

Heres the logic part.
If he had been in the room for a long period of time his eyes would have adjusted to the light level just as your eyes will adjust to the light level in a completely darkened room. Try it, (yes im big on hands on experimentation) go in the bathroom and close the door without the light on at night even better if there is no window. look into the mirror and count to 30. Who do you see. On the other hand if he where breaking in his eyes would be adjusted to the level of light outside and it would have been harder for him to see her than for her to see him giving even more time for her to raise holy heck.


2 of your 3 conclusions at this point are speculation, and your third point actually goes against your theory. please support your conclusions with proof. I know that sounds harsh but its not meant that way I would like to believe your theory but i cant unless its supported by logic and evidence. Logic says breaking in will be noisy and evidence puts alot of witnesses in the area making it risky. Thats why it doesnt feel right to me.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Been off for a few days so sorry if anyone was anticipating a response. Lots of posts since then I see.

As a general response for some thoughts, as I see this... the MO for the women assumed killed by Jack in the Canonical Group has 3 separate iterations, if the group is accepted.

One iteration is that he acts as a client and follows or leads the women to a location where he attacks them, subdues them and lays them down, then cuts their throats and lifts or cuts their garments from the hem up...(not the neckline down)...he parts their legs widely with bended knees, and he proceeds to open the womens abdomens. Thats stops short of including his signature here as well,....(He removes obstacles in terms of biological material, and proceeds to a desired organ).

The second iteration is a man that either approaches his victim openly in the street with witnesses present, or pounces on her from a shadowed spot, and while holding her scarf to choke her, he pulls a knife out and runs it across her throat while dropping her. Thats the complete act.

The third is a man that seeks victims in their homes. He enters small self contained courtyards to either discover an opportunity, or to find someone specific, and he attacks the victim with a knife initially, after gaining entry to the room in some manner. Once the victim is exhausted or weak from blood loss due to slashes at her face and neck, he cuts the throat deeply, positions the victim in the middle of the bed,........staying short of signature inclusion, (that he proceeds to take her apart in sections and pieces.)

In terms of strictly the MO shown, 3 victims were attacked without a knife, 2 had the knife as the initial attack medium, ....3 women were picked up, attacked and lain down in extremely similar situations..of those three, 2 lost their uterus. 1 victim has her throat cut "perhaps while falling", and was not clearly soliciting that night, nor without a bed by her circumstances...but rather her choice, ....and one victim may have been woken in her own bed from a drunken slumber to be killed on the spot.

My contention is in agreement with the Coroners remarks at Polly's Inquest regarding the murderer and the probable intentions displayed with the consecutive murders of Polly and Annie. He was after the uterus, and finding that Bucks Row was a poor location for that act to be completed, he moves into a backyard and thus successfully completes his objective.

Thats shows adaptation. But not to the extent that the methods used on his 4th victim differ from his very first victims 1 and 2. If the same man that killed Polly killed Kate, that says of the 4 "Ripper" murders preceding Marys Kellys death, the 1st, 2nd and 4th assumed victims have almost interchangeable details and circumstances.

If he is so flexible, why is he using virtually the exact same MO elements in his 4th murder that he did in the 1st and 2nd?

Best regards all.

[smezenen]

[QUOTE=perrymason;84929]
If he is so flexible, why is he using virtually the exact same MO elements in his 4th murder that he did in the 1st and 2nd?

[QUOTE]

Michael,
Welcome back, I trust the move went well. I agree with your assesment in the 3 different MOs. given that stride is a ripper victim, the most logical and simplest reason to me is that 1,2 and 4 are the same becouse the circumstances are the same. 3 is the odd ball here, maybe after 2 he tried something new that didnt work so he went back to the good old reliable method for 4. 5 is a different MO becouse the circumstances changed. Of course we dont know for sure that Stride is a Ripper kill so if you take her out the same still hold true for circumstance.

[perrymason]

[QUOTE=smezenen;84942][QUOTE=perrymason;84929]
If he is so flexible, why is he using virtually the exact same MO elements in his 4th murder that he did in the 1st and 2nd?

Michael,
Welcome back, I trust the move went well. I agree with your assesment in the 3 different MOs. given that stride is a ripper victim, the most logical and simplest reason to me is that 1,2 and 4 are the same becouse the circumstances are the same. 3 is the odd ball here, maybe after 2 he tried something new that didnt work so he went back to the good old reliable method for 4. 5 is a different MO becouse the circumstances changed. Of course we dont know for sure that Stride is a Ripper kill so if you take her out the same still hold true for circumstance.

Thanks smezenen, appreciate it....it actually went wrong in oh so many ways, but thats another topic or two.

As you know I'm with the idea of removing Liz from the Group permanently.... barring some new evidence being found, and that would make the continuity of his methods even more compelling.

It would suggest that he killed the first 3 consecutive women using approximately the same format and methodology... and perhaps even killing for the same reasons.

That kill series is 5 weeks long. Jacks Canonical Group is over 2 1/2 months in duration.

When killing within such a small area, less than a single square mile, would the total duration of the assumed series have relevance to the investigation? I would say yes. In this case, it would mean he likely left in the first week of October.

I know of a man in Belfast who gets brought in on suspicion of being the Whitechapel Murderer within days of the Double Event. And is arrested. My Pal Jerry D found that one.

Tell me the truth smez.....would it shock you if we one day found out Jack was an Irish self-ruler? Maybe even an active Fenian? A Senior Investigator thought that might so.

Cheers Mate....dog walk.....see you later on.

All the best smezenen

[Malcolm X]

Malcolm,
1 Who saw him dressed(speculation) Where is your evidence? I know nothing says he was naked either but the point is its speculation to say he was dressed, or that he got up and got dressed. Would he even need to?

2 If Mary saw him attacking from range (speculation) is there any evidence of this other than cut sheets and defensive wounds becouse those where done at close range and can not therfore prove where the attack began.

3 The light from the glowing fire could light the room enough to see around inside but not show thru a window with a curtin drawn over it.

Heres the logic part.
If he had been in the room for a long period of time his eyes would have adjusted to the light level just as your eyes will adjust to the light level in a completely darkened room. Try it, (yes im big on hands on experimentation) go in the bathroom and close the door without the light on at night even better if there is no window. look into the mirror and count to 30. Who do you see. On the other hand if he where breaking in his eyes would be adjusted to the level of light outside and it would have been harder for him to see her than for her to see him giving even more time for her to raise holy heck.


2 of your 3 conclusions at this point are speculation, and your third point actually goes against your theory. please support your conclusions with proof. I know that sounds harsh but its not meant that way I would like to believe your theory but i cant unless its supported by logic and evidence. Logic says breaking in will be noisy and evidence puts alot of witnesses in the area making it risky. Thats why it doesnt feel right to me.

again, this break in isn't noisy, not if he can reach the door latch via the broken window, which he can...it's actually fairly quiet to gain entry, the noise will come from the door squeaking opening, but then again, that late at night; only heard by Kelly....... because the only thing heard by others was the scream of ``oh murder``, but not by all her neighbours!

the rest is speculation i agree, but it's based on good arguement...no 3 is the dodgy one, because at 4am, i doubt the fire was still on, but it may have been; as also, a candle might have been lit too.

a pitch black room, yes your eyes do adjust, but not if Kelly had suddenly woken up/ semi drunk, everything would be blurred for about 10 seconds....it would be pitch black outside too, no lamp on...so his eyes adjusting as he broke in would be minimum.

but the important point is:- cut sheets, defensive wounds and the scream now nobody has come up with a decent explanation of this...because we need to know why he attacked her with a knife first....lets try and focus on this.

because the above still tells me, she saw him attacking at range ( 4 to 5ft away) with his knife already in hand, strong speculation goes against an attempt to strangle her first, which is contrary to his M.O..... therefore i speculate, that Mary either upset Blotchy face in conversation and he lost his temper, or JTR broke in; knife already in hand.

because if Botchy was JTR, then strangling her in that room over a 4 hour period would've been easy, because there would've been loads of opportunities to do so....therefore suddenly attacking her with a knife at 4am makes absolutely no sense at all.

but if not Blotchy, then JTR might have had his knife in hand because he didn't know exactly where she was in bed, or even the exact layout of her room.......it's all totally knew to him, so he might've had his knife out just in case he was expection serious trouble....e.g when you're expecting trouble, but you cant define its true nature...you pick up a weapon first; before advancing into the unknown...it's your guarantee, this is human nature........yes he can stretch through the broken window, very slowly and carefully; to reach the door latch, but he cant take a good look in until he opens the door, because there's a closed curtain, or a coat thrown over the window ( i cant remember which right now) .....speculation yes, but that's all we've got!

[Malcolm X]

Hi all,



The third is a man that seeks victims in their homes. He enters small self contained courtyards to either discover an opportunity, or to find someone specific, and he attacks the victim with a knife initially, after gaining entry to the room in some manner. Once the victim is exhausted or weak from blood loss due to slashes at her face and neck, he cuts the throat deeply, positions the victim in the middle of the bed,........staying short of signature inclusion, (that he proceeds to take her apart in sections and pieces.)


Best regards all.

now Mike mentions this, so although he thinks it's another killer, he still shares the same attack M.O as i do... a break in.

[perrymason]

now Mike mentions this, so although he thinks it's another killer, he still shares the same attack M.O as i do... a break in.

I think the important thing to remember about that scenario Mal is that its has nothing to do with the MO exhibited by the killers of Polly, Annie, Kate....and for that matter, Liz.

I know you believe the killer changed his MO depending on the death being investigated...but I believe the MO shown in a revised "Canonical" Group....P-A-K...is in fact unaltered and extremely consistent in almost every detail. And it reveals new moves each kill......for the "up the ante" followers of serial murderers.

Its essentially the same process he uses with his first victim, that he is still using on his 4th.

I believe we are dealing with a killer, who by his own actions... if he did indeed kill C1, C2, and C4 victims....shows us that he has a formulaic approach with 3 of 5 victims, not an improvised approach and methodology.

This particular discussion should be about looking to see if within the Canonical Group there are MO patterns that are consistent, not for reasons to include individual murders that deviate from those patterns. Liz and Mary deviate....based on whats present in evidence with the remaining 3 victims.....I cant see any evidence that suggests they were all alike. But 3 of them most certainly were.

And one was thought to be his first kill....and one was thought to be his fourth kill. Showing hedefinitively did not abandon his early styles and methods as the killings began added up.

In order for Liz to be a victim, and for Mary to have been, he would have had to change that repetitive routine for each of their murders.

Giving him not one MO, but 3. This is simply over complicating the evidence with conjecture. Its clear 3 were killed one way, and each of the other 2 were killed differently from that model, or the others new model.

[Sam Flynn]

If the wounds where made to access the organs (abdominal mutilation) then they are MO

The cutting wounds are, when you think about it, a by-product of the signature - which, in Jack's case, had something to do with the removal of internal organs. If this "signature" did not exist, then there'd have been no need for him to have cut the bodies in the way he did... unless he decided to suck the organs out with a straw. The wounds are logically linked to his signature, therefore.

How he might have got the women into a situation where he could do all that in the first place has far more to do with the MO. Besides, there are plenty of threads that discuss the wounds, so please let's not get too bogged down in those particular details here.

[perrymason]

The cutting wounds are, when you think about it, a by-product of the signature - which, in Jack's case, had something to do with the removal of internal organs. If this "signature" did not exist, then there'd have been no need for him to have cut the bodies in the way he did... unless he decided to suck the organs out with a straw. The wounds are logically linked to his signature, therefore.

How he might have got the women into a situation where he could do all that in the first place has far more to do with the MO. Besides, there are plenty of threads that discuss the wounds, so please let's not get too bogged down in those particular details here.

Since this line gets crossed so easily and often, might I suggest an MO Qualifier?

If it has to do with how he meets his women, where he meets his women, how he begins the attack, in what manner the attack is executed, what he does to silence the women while this transpires, and how he kills the women.....you are talking MO.

If it concerns unique elements either singular or repetitive that are found present in some or most of the murders attributed to him, occurring after the kill cut....then that would likely fall into signature.

Not a scientific framework, but a general rule we could use.....if its after the murder itself, recurring, and unique or unusual, its a signature.

Thats posing, placing, cutting or mutilating, or perhaps taking.

How he locates, gets private with, attacks and kills his prey is the MO. Experts say the MO can and often does vary,...but the signature is less flexible, as it relates to his motives for committing the crimes.

My contention is that within the Canon, there is evidence that suggests continuity, repetitive killer characteristics, and even common signature elements. That evidence is found with 3 women located and dispatched in the same way.

One is the first victim,...one is assumed the 4th. That is consistency in methodology at least for that group of victims. Whats not clear is why we should assume that that pattern of behavior would fluctuate....when 60% of the "guessed" victims list shows repeated Methodology.

If something doesnt fit obviously, it should be set aside as a Ripper crime, so we can see the real series characteristics clearer.

Best regards all.