change in modus operandi

Well sir, I expect they were. As outside observers, they contain little to suggest such, but internally I am sure there was a sadistic component to the killer. We have no "signature" for the ripper. We have the physical after effects of his interface with the victims. Posing and organ removal have both been suggested, and to us, are very different behaviors. Within the mind of the killers however, they may reflect the same pathological "need". It was helpful for me to stop assuming a "goal" for the killer, and start observing the arrayed behaviors as singular features. Respectfully Dave

I suppose what I was asking Dave, and thanks for taking a stab at it....isnt the type of sadist that Chapman can be categorized as likely the type we would see had tortured animals in his youth? Someone cruel in nature.

Are the Ripper acts as simplistically categorized? Might not curiosity and flat emotional characteristics...meaning devoid of compassion, pity or love of anything...be a fair model? Is it necessarily cruelty in the strictest sense...or absence of emotional responses like remorse or guilt?

Cheers Dave

[protohistorian]

Well sir, I expect they were. As outside observers, they contain little to suggest such, but internally I am sure there was a sadistic component to the killer. We have no "signature" for the ripper. We have the physical after effects of his interface with the victims. Posing and organ removal have both been suggested, and to us, are very different behaviors. Within the mind of the killers however, they may reflect the same pathological "need". It was helpful for me to stop assuming a "goal" for the killer, and start observing the arrayed behaviors as singular features. Respectfully Dave

I liked the Monty Python reference on your sign off Dave.....

Would people agree that Chapman can be called a Sadistic Murderer without pause?

Are the Ripper murders clearly Sadistic acts? It would appear up until the opening of their abdomens, he handles the attack and the death cut without any fanfare or time lost relishing the life being leaked out in front of him. It appears he only kills so he can cut into bodies.

I suppose categorically there is a place for a semi-sadist like this, or a sexual sadist....but is that the same as the type Chapman obviously was?

Best regards.

[protohistorian]

if Chapman committed some of the rippings it is mor probably, knife wielder and attacker, crimes not linked to Chapman, torturing his wife to death. Respectfully Dave

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Caz,

Why is there no problem with the concept of someone who gets satisfaction from starting fires going on to get satisfaction from strangling women, but a huge problem with a strangler going on to batter women to death, for instance?

You've given two examples whereby the violence gets more extreme - or at least, remains fairly constant - and that seems to be generally the case. The transition "violent mutilator/eviscerator ⇒ slow poisoner", however, goes firmly in the opposite direction.

Actually, if Chapman were the Ripper, it's not even as simple as that - more a case of "violent eviscerator ⇒ 9 years abstinence ⇒ slow poisoner".

A bit of a butterfly, this Chapman.

[protohistorian]

Hi All,

So for those who think it's simply not in a serial mutilator's nature to ever change to a serial anything else, how does that work if it's well documented that serial mutilators/poisoners/stranglers/rapists or whatever can start out by being serial arsonists/animal abusers/womanisers/thieves/conmen and so on?

Why is there no problem with the concept of someone who gets satisfaction from starting fires going on to get satisfaction from strangling women, but a huge problem with a strangler going on to batter women to death, for instance?

What's the crucial difference between the former set of behaviours and the latter?

Love,

Caz
X

Not a problem for me. When someone becomes subject to the fantasy in their head, all bets on behavior are off.

[caz]

Hi All,

So for those who think it's simply not in a serial mutilator's nature to ever change to a serial anything else, how does that work if it's well documented that serial mutilators/poisoners/stranglers/rapists or whatever can start out by being serial arsonists/animal abusers/womanisers/thieves/conmen and so on?

Why is there no problem with the concept of someone who gets satisfaction from starting fires going on to get satisfaction from strangling women, but a huge problem with a strangler going on to batter women to death, for instance?

What's the crucial difference between the former set of behaviours and the latter?

Love,

Caz
X

[protohistorian]

That was a good post Mort, and I agree with you, we have enough evidence within the Canonical Group to make a determination on what his primary objectives included, and carrying out mutilation is almost absolute.

Its the final act in all his mini "plays". I think with Jack there are sensory considerations that lend to supposition that the contact with warm organs was his peak. In 3 of the 5 Canonicals, the actual killing of a human being might have been seconds of the overall time he spends.

Hes not looking to kill people as a thrill or release....its just that he has to, in order to cut into them. Warm organs are not found in cadavers. He was certainly competent in committing murder, and perhaps in locating organs....might the warm/cold organ fetish come from working on cold, dead, animals or humans?

Cheers.

I would think the arrangement of victims clothes and or posing of the body is the signature here, with wounds and mutilations occupying a much more variable portion of the killers fantasy. I think that because I believe the clothes and the posing represent an attempt by the killer to dehumanize or humiliate his victims.

[protohistorian]

Since Douglas, reseachers have largely excepted the idea that signature is also an evolving function within the mind of the killer, and consequently subject to variation in accordance with the killers needs. Nothing about a disorganized serial is static by virtue of their ability to hold a steady conceptualization of the crimes they commit.

[protohistorian]

You have an interesting perspective Dave, and some training in these kinds of matters I would think.

Youre the first person to get me to actually consider whether a slasher could get the same kicks from slow torture. There is however in this case also a monetary motive possible for the poisonings...which may be just a fortunate by-product of serving his sadist desires,....but it also might explain why the deaths were caused by incremental amounts of poison accumulating in her system. It was done slowly over time to not arouse anyones suspicions.

If a single killer killed the 5 Canonicals, something I cannot seriously entertain myself, but if so, we have escalation and evolution within the series....Liz Stride, in my opinion a street murder, is the exception, but from Polly on the MO did change. It became much broader in the minds of the investigators, culminating with a murder that took place indoors, with an undressed victim, in a room he may have gone to himself, and any interest in previous organs was absent.

If it was the same man for 1 through 5, it seems that he is evolving in a way that might lead to dismemberment or making Torsos, ...rather than bloodlessly, slowly poisoning wives over long periods of time.

If anything the bloodlust is increasing during the series, indicating he may be "hooked" on the blood and knife elements of his kills. He doesnt take much time to kill them, but he does to cut them.

Its a trickier question now that I understand where the logic might be present in a slash-to-poison killer.

Best regards

here is a simplified version, at some point with Kelly or later, the killer reached the point of diminishing satisfaction with knife attacks, they no longer provided the thrill that the early knife attacks did. The result was the killer started to experiment with other methods, while trying another knife attack or two to confirm they would no linger satisfy him. While in this experimental phase, Chapman poisoned for profit. In the commision of that crime, something gave him the charge he felt with the original knife attacks, and the new method (poisoning) entered the relatively stable portion of the killers fantasy and to outside observers appears as a new and unrelated m.o. Hope that helps

That was a good post Mort, and I agree with you, we have enough evidence within the Canonical Group to make a determination on what his primary objectives included, and carrying out mutilation is almost absolute.

Its the final act in all his mini "plays". I think with Jack there are sensory considerations that lend to supposition that the contact with warm organs was his peak. In 3 of the 5 Canonicals, the actual killing of a human being might have been seconds of the overall time he spends.

Hes not looking to kill people as a thrill or release....its just that he has to, in order to cut into them. Warm organs are not found in cadavers. He was certainly competent in committing murder, and perhaps in locating organs....might the warm/cold organ fetish come from working on cold, dead, animals or humans?

Cheers.

[Mort Belfry]

While I know it's unusual for a killer to change his m.o. I do believe it is possible. In the case of our old friend George Chapman here, it could be a possibility that he went from the heinous crimes against the canonical five (and quite possibly some of the others), to poisoning his "wives".

But this is not a change in modus operandi it is a change in signature.

I'm paraphrasing John Douglas here but,

The Modus Operandi is how the crime is committed. It is the trolling and covering up phases of the crime. It is where the crime is chosen to be committed, how the victim is persuaded etc. Faking a broken arm was one of Ted Bundy's modus operandi(s) (I'm not sure how to pluralise the word.) You're right that it can change, it is fluid, it adapts to the situation. Peter Sutcliffe describes trying to change his to strangulation from beating to throw off the police for one victim.

The signature is why the crime is committed. It does not change. Jack's signature in his mutilations, it is what the whole crimes are geared towards. To change it isn't worth the risk involved. It would be like Jeffrey Dahmer going from keeping bodies for sexual reasons to shooting people from the top storey of a building, there's just no psychological reason to change. Even when Peter Sutcliffe strangled his victim as described above, he still masturbated to the cooling dead body as usual.

And that's what it would be like to a killer who didn't achieve his signtaure, it would be like masturbating and giving up before climaxing. It just wouldn't be worth it.

I am not so sure that event duration is an accurate metric in this case. I believe that duration of event is a factor of our conceptualization of the caseand probably not one for the killer. I submit that the killers overiding concern is how much gratifiacation he gets. I do agree however that something within his medical background started him on his destructive path. I can just as easily see that the combination of failure to garnish signifigant media attention in America coupled with deminishing enjoyment for knife attacks fostering a change in M.O. Thanks and Live Strong Dave

You have an interesting perspective Dave, and some training in these kinds of matters I would think.

Youre the first person to get me to actually consider whether a slasher could get the same kicks from slow torture. There is however in this case also a monetary motive possible for the poisonings...which may be just a fortunate by-product of serving his sadist desires,....but it also might explain why the deaths were caused by incremental amounts of poison accumulating in her system. It was done slowly over time to not arouse anyones suspicions.

If a single killer killed the 5 Canonicals, something I cannot seriously entertain myself, but if so, we have escalation and evolution within the series....Liz Stride, in my opinion a street murder, is the exception, but from Polly on the MO did change. It became much broader in the minds of the investigators, culminating with a murder that took place indoors, with an undressed victim, in a room he may have gone to himself, and any interest in previous organs was absent.

If it was the same man for 1 through 5, it seems that he is evolving in a way that might lead to dismemberment or making Torsos, ...rather than bloodlessly, slowly poisoning wives over long periods of time.

If anything the bloodlust is increasing during the series, indicating he may be "hooked" on the blood and knife elements of his kills. He doesnt take much time to kill them, but he does to cut them.

Its a trickier question now that I understand where the logic might be present in a slash-to-poison killer.

Best regards

[protohistorian]

I am not so sure that event duration is an accurate metric in this case. I believe that duration of event is a factor of our conceptualization of the caseand probably not one for the killer. I submit that the killers overiding concern is how much gratifiacation he gets. I do agree however that something within his medical background started him on his destructive path. I can just as easily see that the combination of failure to garnish signifigant media attention in America coupled with deminishing enjoyment for knife attacks fostering a change in M.O. Thanks and Live Strong Dave

Thank you for your input Perrymason, he did not stop killing until the rope made him stop. He fits our understanding of "diorganized" serials in so far the behavioral change (m.o.) changes to suit specific and unknowable desires within his own mind. I f we work this subject backwards we have a serial murderer that had his career was ended by law enforcement. Chapmans capital crimes were poisoning but there is no way of asserting that his final lethal methodology is in any way similar to his earlier methodologies. If we take the premise as m.o. evolution as the continuing striving of the killer to satiate "fantasies" or even the assertion to gratify drives, it may have been that the gap between knife and poison is entirely filled by the fact that more enjoyment was garnered by the killer by poisoning than the knife. If poisoning more fully met the need of the killer, regardless of the need of killer being fantasy, base drive, or any other reason, we should expect rather than be surprised by a change in m.o..

Very well thought out and put Dave.

As an amateur sleuth I imagined some link between the event duration and the achievement of his acceptable level of satisfaction, something which would be naturally skewed dramatically in the two disparate life taking formats in question. Which is why I was always curious to note the overall time he allotted himself by the reckless venue choices, ...in my perspective it was due to the likelihood that the killing itself was only a "anaesthetic simulation"... how surgical organ extractions begin.."sedating" the patient. In his case, his "procedures" kill, so no need for less final methods. He almost seemed to put himself of the clock on purpose though....brief, terrifying exhilarating rushes of murder followed by what satisfied him the most...the cutting and taking of things.

I personally dont see him tying death.... and what is done afterwards... together. I see him treating murder as a logical step in his field surgery process. Shouldnt we see a preoccupation or fascination with the process of murder itself? With Mary Kelly for example, he has the privacy and yet the actual life taking portion of his evening is probably not much longer than he takes when he is in public. He dawdles and mucks about when it came to the cutting....not necessarily the killing. IMHO.

All the best.