Victimology, MO, signature

[Abby Normal]

Shall we try to make our short definition of the three?

My suggestion:

Victimology:

Poor women often addicted to alcohol selling their bodies cheaply and/or vagabonding in Whitechapel or the City

MO (modus operandi):

Execution in places with a high risk of fast discovery

Signature:

Honour based mutilations and posing

Regards Pierre

Victimology:
Prostitutes and or any woman he could get to a secluded place.

MO
Ruse, getting victim to a secluded place, strangulation, cut throat.

Sig:
Post mortem mutilation to body with knife, with emphasis on extracting internal organs.

Re posing:while he didn't do any overt posing, Many serial killers will cover up or at least make a lame attempt to hide, I think he posed them as in he left them in the most shocking position he could given the lack of time he had, for example leaving their skirts pushed up, exposing the mutilations.

[gnote]

Victimology:
Prostitutes and or any woman he could get to a secluded place.

MO
Ruse, getting victim to a secluded place, strangulation, cut throat.

Sig:
Post mortem mutilation to body with knife, with emphasis on extracting internal organs.

Re posing:while he didn't do any overt posing, Many serial killers will cover up or at least make a lame attempt to hide, I think he posed them as in he left them in the most shocking position he could given the lack of time he had, for example leaving their skirts pushed up, exposing the mutilations.

I agree. For the killer it's very convenient that his victimology and MO work in conjunction. The signature is harder to explain/understand but the first two aid the final result.

[The Good Michael]

Victimology:
Prostitutes and or any woman he could get to a secluded place.

MO
Ruse, getting victim to a secluded place, strangulation, cut throat.

Sig:
Post mortem mutilation to body with knife, with emphasis on extracting internal organs.

Re posing:while he didn't do any overt posing, Many serial killers will cover up or at least make a lame attempt to hide, I think he posed them as in he left them in the most shocking position he could given the lack of time he had, for example leaving their skirts pushed up, exposing the mutilations.

I agree with all this. Re: Posing, the way you suggest makes the posing incidental to the murders which means in effect, it wasn't posing. Or?

Mike

[lynn cates]

Vielen Dank.

Hello Gwyneth, Michael.

Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

blitz

Hello Frank. Surely "MJK" was no blitz?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

posing

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"And I think they were posed in a sense, in that he did not mutilate them as they fell. He arranged the body so he could do what he wanted."

Yes, opened the legs for access.

OK.

Cheers.
LC

[FrankO]

Hello Frank. Surely "MJK" was no blitz?

Hi Lynn,

Of course you’re right. Or at least, the attack on MJK was not as surprising as in the other cases. However little, she had time to react before she received her first cut. But it goes to show that MO doesn’t need to be the same throughout a series. Or at least to me it does.

Cheers,
Frank

[Abby Normal]

I agree with all this. Re: Posing, the way you suggest makes the posing incidental to the murders which means in effect, it wasn't posing. Or?

Mike

Hi GM
well its a tough one I admit. Like I said no overt posing, like positioning the body in weird way for some significance or cutting off a certain body part and placing it on purpose for shock value somewhere else(except for Kelly-see below) or moving the body to make it look like different MO etc.

however, the meer fact he left as is in such a shocking discovery mode strikes me, without even say, pulling the skirt back down, as significant.

and with Kelly, having more time, he placed the breast, uterus and I believe kidney under her head?!? That's a little more overt. If he hadn't done this then I think I would lean more to incidental.

[Michael W Richards]

One thing is beyond dispute, in MJK's case, someone placed the left arm back over her gutted midsection. It had to have been moved after the carnage. As for why the organs were placed about her....I think that between her legs is one thing, but a breast and a uterus under her head is another.

In the case of Kate the movement of organs may have just been utilitarian, even with that 2 foot colon section...and in the case of Polly the only "posing" would be the pulling down of the skirt..if the killer did that...and in Liz's case there is no obvious interaction with her body or her clothes after the throat slit.

So....Mary is the ONLY victim where the possible, indeed probable posing of the remains issue remains valid.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

premise

Hello Frank. Thanks.

"But it goes to show that MO doesn’t need to be the same throughout a series."

Quite. But that was:

1. the assumption tying together the "case."

and

2. the premise of this thread?

Cheers.
LC

[FrankO]

"But it goes to show that MO doesn’t need to be the same throughout a series."

Quite. But that was:

1. the assumption tying together the "case."

and

2. the premise of this thread?

Hi Lynn,

Indeed. I see no compelling reason to conclude there was no Jack the Ripper, so I'm inclined to assume that there was.

Cheers,
Frank

[Robert St Devil]

{Funny. One of my Casebook links quit working.}

Hello All

The work of KEPPEL, WEIS, BROWN & WELCH on the signature of Jack the Ripper assisted me greatly in understanding the difference between Modus Operandi and Signature.

Shaggyrand filled in the rest.

[Errata]

{Funny. One of my Casebook links quit working.}

Hello All

The work of KEPPEL, WEIS, BROWN & WELCH on the signature of Jack the Ripper assisted me greatly in understanding the difference between Modus Operandi and Signature.

Shaggyrand filled in the rest.

Put it like this.

Basically, Dahmer started out braining a guy with a weight and dumping him in the woods, then beating a guy to death cutting him up and dumping him in the woods, to strangulation and dismemberment, finally drugging them and injecting their brains with acid then dismembering them and eating parts of them.

MO's clearly can change.

What didn't change was his need to cuddle with and engage in sexual behavior with men who were submissive and unable to pull away. Unable to break his fantasy. Unconcious, dying, dead. That's his signature. That what he does when he can't do anything else. If no other part of his ritual could happen for some reason, that was the part he would fight to keep.

So it's just as well he screwed up, because no one was looking for him, and his victim pool ensured he wasn't going to get caught because someone noticed a serial killer. His signature meant he had to be caught in the act, because it was a private thing that no one would know about.

Signatures may not be as helpful as MO. But they are consistent where MO often changes to meet the changing needs of the killer. And knowing the signature often doesn't help any more than knowing the MO. Other things catch a killer as often as not. The signature and MO just sort the killer. Which is useful, but not a road map by any means.

[Pcdunn]

I researched crime signatures, and found this enlightening article, which offers some case studies as examples: http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Research/signature.htm

[lynn cates]

Nessie

Hello Frank. Thanks.

I see no compelling reason to conclude there is no Nessie. However, I draw a different conclusion.

Cheers.
LC