Facial Mutilations

[Abby Normal]

I'm not entirely sure that the two cuts is a signature. It might be if it's significant to him, but if it's because he's just sort of bad at slitting throats and always has a sort of starter cut because he's nervous, that's not really a signature as much as it's significant. The way being left handed would be significant but not a signature. A signature is that which is necessary to the killer but not for the commission of the crime. Technically the extra cut isn't necessary, but it might be accidental. In which case it's not significant so it's not a signature.

Cutting the throat down to the spine is a signature. It's not necessary for death, and it was done after the victim technically died, so once the victim dies, you only keep at it if it's important to you. No one ever born has the ability to cut the throat that deeply in one go without power tools. That's a lot of hacking away at some tough tissue. So that mattered to him. That's a signature.

There's almost never only one signature. The overkill on the neck, the pose, the abdominal mutilations, organ theft, facial mutilations, etc. All potentially signatures. All likely signatures (except possibly the pose). So having a lot of signatures isn't uncommon. Changing them is uncommon. And circumstances may change things for a killer, say being interrupted for example. But even if they were thwarted at some point, they go back to what's important.

By the way, the eye guy was always going to take eyes. Anyone who messes with eyes even a little ends up being an enucleator. I don't know why exactly, but it's the only body part that once a killer messes with it, he is destined to organizing his life around getting them. It's like eyes are addictive somehow. Not many killers are interested in them, but those who are always end up taking them. Always. The Eyeball killer was remarkable only in that apparently it was the only thing he was interested in. Enucleators also tend to be into taxidermy. So there's that. Most common part taken by a killer. The tongue is a close second, but that's a little skewed by hit men who are not technically serial killers is a psychological sense.

Hi Errata
Good post.
But the eyes? and tongue??? I thought the most common thing taken by a serial killer was the head, then breasts and feet?? in that order.

Or are you just talking about all killers?

[Errata]

Hello Lynn,

Well, if we didn't know why a killer's signature was so precise, I.e why he felt the need to repeat such behaviour, I think it would be impossible to say. However, what concerns me is lack of precedent: are there any examples of a serial killer repeating a precise signature characteristic with every victim?

Schlesinger (2010) refers to a serial killer whose ritual evolved from genital mutilation to dismemberment, whilst another killer's ritual evolved from eye puncturing with the first victim-pretty rare, I would have thought-to eye enucleation with victims two and three.

I'm not entirely sure that the two cuts is a signature. It might be if it's significant to him, but if it's because he's just sort of bad at slitting throats and always has a sort of starter cut because he's nervous, that's not really a signature as much as it's significant. The way being left handed would be significant but not a signature. A signature is that which is necessary to the killer but not for the commission of the crime. Technically the extra cut isn't necessary, but it might be accidental. In which case it's not significant so it's not a signature.

Cutting the throat down to the spine is a signature. It's not necessary for death, and it was done after the victim technically died, so once the victim dies, you only keep at it if it's important to you. No one ever born has the ability to cut the throat that deeply in one go without power tools. That's a lot of hacking away at some tough tissue. So that mattered to him. That's a signature.

There's almost never only one signature. The overkill on the neck, the pose, the abdominal mutilations, organ theft, facial mutilations, etc. All potentially signatures. All likely signatures (except possibly the pose). So having a lot of signatures isn't uncommon. Changing them is uncommon. And circumstances may change things for a killer, say being interrupted for example. But even if they were thwarted at some point, they go back to what's important.

By the way, the eye guy was always going to take eyes. Anyone who messes with eyes even a little ends up being an enucleator. I don't know why exactly, but it's the only body part that once a killer messes with it, he is destined to organizing his life around getting them. It's like eyes are addictive somehow. Not many killers are interested in them, but those who are always end up taking them. Always. The Eyeball killer was remarkable only in that apparently it was the only thing he was interested in. Enucleators also tend to be into taxidermy. So there's that. Most common part taken by a killer. The tongue is a close second, but that's a little skewed by hit men who are not technically serial killers is a psychological sense.

[lynn cates]

precise

Hello John. Thanks.

"are there any examples of a serial killer repeating a precise signature characteristic with every victim?"

I think we might even ask whether there are serial killers with 2 such precise signatures. If there are, did they later deviate?

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

Intentions aside, the cuts were clearly there in both cases.

Would a serial killer (if such there was) deviate from such a precise signature?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Well, if we didn't know why a killer's signature was so precise, I.e why he felt the need to repeat such behaviour, I think it would be impossible to say. However, what concerns me is lack of precedent: are there any examples of a serial killer repeating a precise signature characteristic with every victim?

Schlesinger (2010) refers to a serial killer whose ritual evolved from genital mutilation to dismemberment, whilst another killer's ritual evolved from eye puncturing with the first victim-pretty rare, I would have thought-to eye enucleation with victims two and three.

[Jon Guy]

Thanks Jon. Thought your earlier post was excellent by the way.

The fact is, comparing factors such as wounds is always going to be a subjective exercise anyway. I mean, on another thread it's been argued that the way Liz Jackson's abdomen was divided into sections is almost identical to MJK's injuries. However, I find it almost impossible to believe that Jackson and MJK were killed by the same person, as their killer's signature/MO was clearly so radically different.

Thanks John !!

I don`t know, that`s the sort of factor I`d look out for when trying to identify a possible perp.

For example, both Kelly and Chapman had the surface of the abdomen removed in panels, and both had the circular throat cut.
I`m not up to speed on the Torso murders, but if Jackson`s abdomen was removed in 3 panels, it should be noted, whatever our personal thoughts on the matter are.

[lynn cates]

double or nothing

Hello (again) John. You seem to question whether there are twin cuts to Annie. If you look at "Ultimate" p. 105, it clearly states that there are two cuts--just like with Polly.

Now, why would a killer do that?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

deviation

Hello John. Thanks.

Intentions aside, the cuts were clearly there in both cases.

Would a serial killer (if such there was) deviate from such a precise signature?

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

There were no twin cuts on Chapman, John, so it`s a moot point.

Thanks Jon. Thought your earlier post was excellent by the way.

The fact is, comparing factors such as wounds is always going to be a subjective exercise anyway. I mean, on another thread it's been argued that the way Liz Jackson's abdomen was divided into sections is almost identical to MJK's injuries. However, I find it almost impossible to believe that Jackson and MJK were killed by the same person, as their killer's signature/MO was clearly so radically different.

[Jon Guy]

But the difficulty is even if the parallel cuts were not incidental, we don't know what they may signify.

There were no twin cuts on Chapman, John, so it`s a moot point.

[John G]

But the difficulty is even if the parallel cuts were not incidental, we don't know what they may signify. Moreover, the ritualistic behaviour of serial killers is apt to change, I.e by evolving or becoming more elaborate. In other words, even if a killer inflicted identical cuts on a dozen victims we cannot predict, with any degree of certainly, that the same ritual will be repeated on the next victim. Put simply, if we don't know the killer's intentions we cannot predict whether he would be apt to repeat rituals ad infinitum. And, of course, intentions/objectives are susceptible to change.

[lynn cates]

intentions

Hello Gareth. Thanks.

Hard to read intentions. But the twin cuts on Polly and Annie are clear enough to see.

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Well IF the signature is removal of internal organs, Polly and Liz are exceptions.

Not so sure about Polly, Lynn. The intention to remove organs may be indicated by the deep cuts inflicted on her abdomen.

[lynn cates]

exceptions

Hello Harry.

Well IF the signature is removal of internal organs, Polly and Liz are exceptions.

I am happy to place Polly and Annie together with their parallel double cuts. But the rest . . . ?

May need a new definition of signature.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

So we have the same killer for Polly & Annie.
A different killer for Liz.
A different killer for Kate (on the same night as Liz)
A different killer for MJK.

Now you can claim that there were other vicious murders at this time to give credence to the multi-killer hypothesis. I would ask how many of those had the same MO and signature removal of internal organs? None, that's the answer. With the canonicals you have a bunch of murders quite similar in execution and signature, in a short space of time, within a small neighbourhood. The most logical and parsimonious explanation is that it was the work of one man. That's the consensus and it was the belief at the time. I don't know why some people want to fixate on the slightest discrepancies between murders instead of looking at the obvious parallels. It's already been established that some serial killers deviate radically in their methodology, whereas others are creatures of habit. The Ripper leans mostly to the latter. He dispatched his victims in the same way, he mutilated the remains and stole their innards in lightning-quick fashion. Just how many sickos do you think there were capable of doing that? And why did they all choose to come out of the woodwork in the autumn of 1888?

[Jon Guy]

Hello John. Thanks.

"Ah, but is the Eddowes murder the black swan?"

Certainly not. It merely--in conjunction with the stark similarities in Polly and Annie (eg, parallel neck cuts)--beats the devil out of it. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

The cuts to the throats of Chapman and Nichols were quite different

Chapman had one jagged cut right around her throat and over lapping.
Nichols had one long cut, and a shorter one below it.