Klosowski docs wrongly translated

[Tecs]

Hello Batman,

You would be talking about a radical change of signature, not just MO! I mean, it would surely require a complete personality change. Frankly what you would be arguing for would be totally unprecedented in recorded crimonological history. Put simply, I am not aware of a single documented case of a serial poisoner committing violent serial murders, let alone a killer like JtR suddenly transforming himself into a slow, calculating poisoner!

Hi John.


The Zodiac killer boasted in his letters that his forthcoming murders would be deliberately set up to look like accidents so that nobody would even know a murder had been committed. I don't know if there were any subsequently but if so, that would be a pretty big change of M.O.

Plus Sutcliffe attempted to remove Jean Jordan's head specifically to make it look like it wasn't committed by him, ie demonstrating a different M.O. He didn't succeed and the Police correctly linked the crime to TYR but the intent was there.

regards,

[John G]

What about all the cases where the number of victims is like 5-20 suspected or something strange like that. Where signatures deviate but DNA links some together so they don't exclude cases based on these deviating because victomology is the same or suspect lived near an incident? I'm sure there are lots.

Could you give examples? Are you now rejecting Keppel and his concept of signature? Remember, a killer's signature supposedly remains constant; it doesn't vary because it is the reason he does what he does. Koppel et al argued that JtR's signature was organized around sexual violence, therefore if Chapman was JtR you would have to completely abandon your lust killer theory.

[John G]

Hi John.


The Zodiac killer boasted in his letters that his forthcoming murders would be deliberately set up to look like accidents so that nobody would even know a murder had been committed. I don't know if there were any subsequently but if so, that would be a pretty big change of M.O.

Plus Sutcliffe attempted to remove Jean Jordan's head specifically to make it look like it wasn't committed by him, ie demonstrating a different M.O. He didn't succeed and the Police correctly linked the crime to TYR but the intent was there.

regards,

Hi Tecs,

Personally I think Zodiac's murders ended with Paul Stine. Jean Jordan was very consistent with Sutcliffe's MO: for instance, she was ferociously attacked with a hammer-like Sutcliffe's other victims. The police never had any doubt she was a Yorkshire Ripper victim and, incredibly, Sutcliffe was even interviewed in connection with the murder.

Better examples might be Arthur Shawcross and Peter Kurton, who attacked both children and adults. However, where there is no precedent is a violent killer, and one that overpowers his victims quickly, transforming into a slow poisoner. The personalities are radically different.

[Batman]

Could you give examples? Are you now rejecting Keppel and his concept of signature? Remember, a killer's signature supposedly remains constant; it doesn't vary because it is the reason he does what he does. Koppel et al argued that JtR's signature was organized around sexual violence, therefore if Chapman was JtR you would have to completely abandon your lust killer theory.

Let's have a look at what Keppel actually says:

Although an offender’s signature may evolve, the core features of the signa-
ture will remain constant (Douglas & Munn, 1992a; 1992b; Douglas & Olshaker, 1997;
Geberth, 1996; 2003; Keppel & Birnes, 1997; Keppel, 1995a; 1995b; Keppel, 2000; 2004).

It's the core features that are supposed to remain constant. However Keppel lists many features of JtRs signature. [linked]... personal signature characteristics, including picquerism, overkill, incapacitation, domination and control, open and displayed, unusual body position, sexual degradation, mutilation, organ harvesting, specific areas of attack, preplanning and organization, and a combination of signature features.

So signature is quite a broad coverage of a combination of aspects to a crime.

If Chapman is JtR then the C5 becomes C6 with Tabram and Smith a big possibility due to the location connections. So already we are expanding beyond the C5, which is fine, because the C5 isn't a limit by modern standards, just what we know he did do.

Chapman may have killed more. When I say more I mean the Torso connection (didn't Chapman live near where one was found?) and the remainder of the Whitechapel murders. Let's say he didn't do them. Can he still be JtR?

Sure.

We now know today that lust murderers can take long pauses and then resume. In the meantime do they commit other crimes? Yes, they do. Maybe not murder, but they can certainly make life hell for people as per Denis Rader. He took a victim to a Church and posed her before dumping her. He moved the body. He didn't do that before. Same with the Ipswich Killer, Steve Wright (3 of the victims don't even have a cause of death, yet victimology was the same).

Could it be that JtR took up wife poisoning for an interlude. Why not? If he did it for the money, then his motive may not have been the same at all. Just another crime. Yet how many of JtRs signature components feature with Chapman poisoning? Incapacitation (check), domination and control (check), preplanning and organization (check). So its not completely different at all. Also poisoning and drugging are not a million miles away and we have murderers who have used drugging (sometimes rendering the person a vegetable for life) as in the case of Dahmer.

We must also remember that despite JtR's victims being savaged, he didn't torture them. He rendered them unconscious quickly and death occurred before mutilation. It is unlikely they would have felt any pain outside of manual strangulation. Yet in the case of George Chapman, he is actually torturing them over long periods of time, whittling them down to bone. That's a step up, not a step down in terms of violence experienced by the victim.

That aside I think you want some examples but here is a stat for you...
Roughly 50% of offenders experiment with rituals. New opportunities to experiment. Rituals and signatures differ but rituals can be omitted completely. Also all of this depends on their state of mind at the time. http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20542945

These are 2010 articles compared to 2005 Keppel, so I think there is room for expansion on how static a signature is since then.

I know the articles might not name popular culture murderers (aren't we a strange species to make pop culture out of murderers) but these articles used crime stats/databases.

Ted Bundy - Connected by victimology.
Dean Corll - different signatures
Wayne Williams - Child murderer who was convicted of killing 2 adult men.
Melvin Rees

Im sure there are tons more. Especially the ones suspect of doing more.

[John G]

Hello Batman,

I think you're confusing ritual with signature. Hazlewoood and Warren clearly distinguished between ritual (repetitive acts at a crime scene) and signature ("a unique combination of behaviours that emerges across two or more offences.") See: Hazlewood and Warren, 2003.

Thus, the "signature ritualistic aspect of the crime...does not change dramatically; it is designed to meet the offenders's motivational driven fantasy and, therefore, remains psychosexually arousing to him over time." (See Hazlewood and Warren, 1995)

This argument is supported by Douglas and Mann: "...the signature [a term that, unfortunately, has been often used simultaneously with ritual] aspect stays the same, whether it is the first offence or one committed ten years later. The ritual may evolve, but the theme remains constant." (Douglas and Munn, 1992).

The Schlesinger et al study arrived at the same conclusions: "Most rituals were not identical, but they were behaviourally similar, thematically consistent, and, in about half the cases, they changed or evolved." (Schlesinger et al, 2010)

Keppel also supports this view: "While MO can change over time and reflect the nature of the crime, signature characteristics remain stable and reflect the nature of offender." (Keppel et al, 2005) He went on to define JtR's signature characteristics: "The main components of Jack the Ripper's signature include the control of the victim and progressive picquerism." (ibid) Other signature characteristics that were identified included "posing", "overkill" and "the need to completely incapacitate his victims and gain their immediate submission." (ibid)

In fact, it cannot even be argued that George Chapman was solely motivated by money, as he clearly enjoyed the power and control that being a slow poisoner gave him. As Abberline pointed out: "A man who could watch his wives being slowly tortured to death by poison, as he did, was capable of anything..." This differs greatly from JtR'S motivational factors: "the killers's signature is organized around the sexual violence committed against his victims...it is likely that Jack the Ripper utilized the violence of slashing and stabbing his victims with a knife as methods for exercising power and control over the victim." (Keppel et al, 2005.)

And, as I noted in my earlier posts, it would be completely unprecedented for a violent sexual/lust killer to evolve into a slow serial poisoner. In fact, if you accept that hypothesis why not accept the multiple killer hypothesis? At least there's some empirical evidence for that argument. i.e. differences in anatomical knowledge/ surgical skill demonstrated.

In my opinion we need to move beyond completely untenable suspects, like George Chapman, who can easily be rejected, towards far more sensible alternatives like William Bury and Frances Thompson.

[Batman]

MKH and red fish

The article I referenced says the opposite to what you are saying John. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20542945

Ritual and signature are fantasy-driven, repetitive crime scene behaviors that have been found to occur in serial sexual homicide. Notwithstanding numerous anecdotal case reports, ritual and signature have rarely been studied empirically. In a national sample of 38 offenders and their 162 victims, we examined behavioral and thematic consistency, as well as the evolution and uniqueness of these crime scene actions. The notion that serial sexual murderers engage in the same rituals and leave unique signatures at every scene was not supported by our data. In fact, the results suggest that the crime scene conduct of this group of offenders is fairly complex and varied. Implications of these findings for forensic assessments and criminal investigations are discussed.

I also don't feel this contradicts Keppel because Keppel isn't producing a journal article on general ideas about MO/Signature. Its a profile of JtR.

In fact, it cannot even be argued that George Chapman was solely motivated by money, as he clearly enjoyed the power and control that being a slow poisoner gave him.

He had already been to court for debts he said where owed to him. One man was jailed (and then freed when Chapman got into trouble). So Chapman has a history of crime for financial gain. Did he get any other kick out of it. Probably. He was horrible man.

As Abberline pointed out: "A man who could watch his wives being slowly tortured to death by poison, as he did, was capable of anything..." This differs greatly from JtR'S motivational factors: "the killers's signature is organized around the sexual violence committed against his victims...it is likely that Jack the Ripper utilized the violence of slashing and stabbing his victims with a knife as methods for exercising power and control over the victim." (Keppel et al, 2005.)

However, this is not a barrier to a change in MO or signature. Keppel is giving us a profile of JtR. I don't think this should be used as a paper that states Keppels findings on MO/Signatures in general. In fact the lack of barrier, relax in time constraints and the examples you asked for demonstrate we know more now about how the idea of clone murders is simply not acceptable. Klosowski wasn't passed it either in age.

In fact, if you accept that hypothesis why not accept the multiple killer hypothesis? At least there's some empirical evidence for that argument. i.e. differences in anatomical knowledge/ surgical skill demonstrated.

Its in variation of MO and variation of signature that one can reject the multiple killer hypothesis (MKH) as that hypothesis discounts MO or signature can show ANY variation.
This is why one asks of those who propose the MKH if they accept or reject MO or signature can change.

In my opinion we need to move beyond completely untenable suspects, like George Chapman, who can easily be rejected, towards far more sensible alternatives like William Bury and Frances Thompson.

I think there are questions left unanswered about Chapman, his refusal to admit he is Klosowski and reason why. Geoprofiling and George's Yard have a connection. Since Klosowski is connected to George's Yard, even if after 1890, this is going hang over him, excuse the pun.

To finish off I think the “lust killer to poisoner” rebuttal has been a red herring all along. This is because if we look at the spectrum of serial crimes where MO and signature have changed, we can ask the same thing but in different ways “wife poisoner to arsonist” (Klosowski was an attempted arsonist btw), “lust killer of women to killer of men”, “killer of homosexuals who kill a heterosexual”. We may find there is only one, two or three or no examples of some combinations, but all we need is one change to show it can happen (the article above says it does happen a lot more than we think), plus Chapman did literally try to change his life several times.

[Harry D]

In my opinion we need to move beyond completely untenable suspects, like George Chapman, who can easily be rejected, towards far more sensible alternatives like William Bury and Frances Thompson.

I don't know if I'd put Bury and Thompson in the same bracket, John. Bury was a guy who left the East End soon after the (canonical) murders ended and was executed for a similar(ish) crime. There's nothing in Thompson's make-up to suggest that he was even capable of such violent acts.

[John G]

Hello Batman,

I am somewhat perplexed by your last post. Schlesinger's research refers to sexual homicide, which Chapman's wife murders certainly were not. And to quote Schlesinger in full: "Specifically, the notion that offenders leave unique signatures [ defined as a "unique, ritualistic act not seen at any other crime scene in the sample, i.e. eye enucleation"; or a "ritualistic act that was a unique or distinctive way to carry out a familiar act"; "or a combination of acts that, when taken together, were distinctive and unique"] at every scene is not supported by the data. Although almost all the offenders in our sample engaged in some form of ritualistic behaviour, they rarely engaged in exactly the same behaviour at each murder. Most rituals were not identical but they were behaviourally similar, thematically consistent, and, in about half the cases, they changed and evolved." Schlesinger et al, 2010)

Therefore ritualistic crime scene behaviour is not always completely identical but similar and thematically consistent. Examples of evolution or elaboration of rituals included post-mortem genital mutilation progressing to dismemberment.

However, how can a signature organized around the "sexualized violence committed against his victims" components of which are "control of the victim and progressive picquerism", with a further characteristic being the need to "completely incapacitate his victims and gain there immediate submission" (Keppel, 2005), evolve into abandoning sexualized violence, in favour of slowly poisoning the victim, whilst remaining "behaviourally similar and thematically consistent."? Of course it can't. The notion's completely absurd.

That is no doubt why there has never been a single recorded example of a sexual serial killer, targeting strangers, evolving into a slow poisoner targeting victims known to them.

Of course, the irony is that the multiple killer hypothesis has been criticized on the grounds that it is unprecedented, only for an equally unprecedented solution to be adopted or seriously considered!

If this theory were correct then signature analysis would be useless, as serial killers would be completely unpredictable. I can, therefore, only conclude that anyone who supports this argument has decided to abandon signature analysis in favour of their own curious, unsupported, theory. Good luck!

[John G]

I don't know if I'd put Bury and Thompson in the same bracket, John. Bury was a guy who left the East End soon after the (canonical) murders ended and was executed for a similar(ish) crime. There's nothing in Thompson's make-up to suggest that he was even capable of such violent acts.

Hello Harry,

I think Richard Patterson make a reasonable case for Thompson. I am impressed by the fact that he trained as a surgeon- Trevor's experts seem to think the killer must have had high level of surgical skill, assuming the body parts were removed at the crime scene- and that he may have been living very close to Kelly when she was murdered; in fact he might even have resembled Hutchinson's suspect!

He also seems to fit the profile fairly well. According to Richard His only relationship was with a prostitute, which lasted just a year before she disappeared never to be seen again. Serial killers, predisposed to sexual homicide, often have problems forming conventional relationships. Moreover, he committed acts of arson when a child, as do 56% of serial killers. He also mutilated a doll as a child, as did Kemper.

Of course, this biggest problem is that, unlike Bury, he is not known to have committed acts of violence, let alone murder. I believe he wrote about committing acts of violence in his poetry but them so did Robert Browning, and he's obviously not a suspect! See, for example, "Porphyria's Lover."

I would therefore conclude that Thompson should be considered as a serious suspect but I'm undecided as to whether he should be regarded as serious as Bury, who for several years was my number one suspect- and that's before the new information linking him to Whitechapel! Didn't he train as butcher as well?

[Batman]

The Keppel paper isn't a paper about general MO/Signatures

Hello Batman,

I am somewhat perplexed by your last post. Schlesinger's research refers to sexual homicide, which Chapman's wife murders certainly were not. And to quote Schlesinger in full: "Specifically, the notion that offenders leave unique signatures [ defined as a "unique, ritualistic act not seen at any other crime scene in the sample, i.e. eye enucleation"; or a "ritualistic act that was a unique or distinctive way to carry out a familiar act"; "or a combination of acts that, when taken together, were distinctive and unique"] at every scene is not supported by the data. Although almost all the offenders in our sample engaged in some form of ritualistic behaviour, they rarely engaged in exactly the same behaviour at each murder. Most rituals were not identical but they were behaviourally similar, thematically consistent, and, in about half the cases, they changed and evolved." Schlesinger et al, 2010)

Sorry but that looks misleading. You are saying you are quoting the paper's author in full, but haven't you have altered it. http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full.pdf

This is what the DIRECT quote actually said.

Our research suggests that the crime scene actions
of serial sexual murderers are fairly complex and var-
ied. Specifically, the notion that offenders leave
unique signatures at every scene is not supported by
the data

How more clear can it be than that? Also if you read the paper you can see they are highly critical of views that signatures don't change. The whole paper is about that. It is also critical of saying the same thing about ritual. It explains the problems of saying X is ritual and Y is signature. There is an amount of subjectivity in that, not objectivity. Hence its a psychology, not a science (important).

This is easy to demonstrate. For example, what is your grounds to say my view has Chapman 'changing' signature? I don't have to present that case at all. Again, there is nothing stopping a lust killer pausing and making a profit through poisoning people. In fact what's absurd is the idea that the mentality of someone as messed up as a lust killer, couldn't pull off another crime! There is no barrier here, sir. None. Plus, as I mentioned, Chapman had already been involved in other financial crimes. If a thief evolves into a serial killer, does that mean they can't steal anymore? How do we know poisoning wasn't something JtR experimented before turning to something else? The idea of constant escalation is only as good as the mental state of the person and the environment they are in. Different pressures change things.

However, how can a signature organized around the "sexualized violence committed against his victims" components of which are "control of the victim and progressive picquerism", with a further characteristic being the need to "completely incapacitate his victims and gain there immediate submission" (Keppel, 2005), evolve into abandoning sexualized violence, in favour of slowly poisoning the victim, whilst remaining "behaviourally similar and thematically consistent."? Of course it can't. The notion's completely absurd.

What you have to demonstrate is that Keppel today believes signatures don't change. What you can't do is use a paper that is about a case specific profile from 2005 to say that's his view on MOs/signature in general.

That is no doubt why there has never been a single recorded example of a sexual serial killer, targeting strangers, evolving into a slow poisoner targeting victims known to them.

We have serial killers who have killed both strangers and people they knew, including immediate family members, after they killed strangers. Edmund Kemper shot, stabbed and smothered strangers. Then after that he decided to turn a hammer on his mum. Stranger homicides followed by a matricide. Countless cases of stuff like this.

There is also the additional problem that since the early 20th century it was looking less likely anyone would get away with poisoning a loved one and certainly not today. Back in 1890s it was obviously even a problem then! We do however have plenty of lust killers who changed MOs and signatures.

Of course, the irony is that the multiple killer hypothesis has been criticized on the grounds that it is unprecedented, only for an equally unprecedented solution to be adopted or seriously considered!

Changing in MO and signature is exampled with the peer-review above given. The MKH is unexampled.

If this theory were correct then signature analysis would be useless, as serial killers would be completely unpredictable. I can, therefore, only conclude that anyone who supports this argument has decided to abandon signature analysis in favour of their own curious, unsupported, theory. Good luck!

Your view is why serial killers often don't get connected because you don't think signature can vary as much as being demonstrated. I think you are proposing an odd barrier to other criminal behaviour, which doesn't exist. What is this block exactly?

[John G]

Sorry but that looks misleading. You are saying you are quoting the paper's author in full, but haven't you have altered it. http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full.pdf

This is what the DIRECT quote actually said.

Our research suggests that the crime scene actions
of serial sexual murderers are fairly complex and var-
ied. Specifically, the notion that offenders leave
unique signatures at every scene is not supported by
the data

How more clear can it be than that? Also if you read the paper you can see they are highly critical of views that signatures don't change. The whole paper is about that. It is also critical of saying the same thing about ritual. It explains the problems of saying X is ritual and Y is signature. There is an amount of subjectivity in that, not objectivity. Hence its a psychology, not a science (important).

This is easy to demonstrate. For example, what is your grounds to say my view has Chapman 'changing' signature? I don't have to present that case at all. Again, there is nothing stopping a lust killer pausing and making a profit through poisoning people. In fact what's absurd is the idea that the mentality of someone as messed up as a lust killer, couldn't pull off another crime! There is no barrier here, sir. None. Plus, as I mentioned, Chapman had already been involved in other financial crimes. If a thief evolves into a serial killer, does that mean they can't steal anymore? How do we know poisoning wasn't something JtR experimented before turning to something else? The idea of constant escalation is only as good as the mental state of the person and the environment they are in. Different pressures change things.




What you have to demonstrate is that Keppel today believes signatures don't change. What you can't do is use a paper that is about a case specific profile from 2005 to say that's his view on MOs/signature in general.



We have serial killers who have killed both strangers and people they knew, including immediate family members, after they killed strangers. Edmund Kemper shot, stabbed and smothered strangers. Then after that he decided to turn a hammer on his mum. Stranger homicides followed by a matricide. Countless cases of stuff like this.

There is also the additional problem that since the early 20th century it was looking less likely anyone would get away with poisoning a loved one and certainly not today. Back in 1890s it was obviously even a problem then! We do however have plenty of lust killers who changed MOs and signatures.




Changing in MO and signature is exampled with the peer-review above given. The MKH is unexampled.



Your view is why serial killers often don't get connected because you don't think signature can vary as much as being demonstrated. I think you are proposing an odd barrier to other criminal behaviour, which doesn't exist. What is this block exactly?

Hello,

I can only reiterate what I've stated before: sex murderers don't become slow poisoners and you cannot cite a single example to the contrary, and neither did Schlesinger: Schlesinger et al, 2010, Table 4. You therefore have zero precedent for such an hypothesis.

Moreover, I did cite it full. As I've tried to explain to you "unique signature" is defined as "a unique ritualistic act not seen at seen at any other crime scene in the sample" etc. Now, of course, that can change. However, as I've also pointed out to you when it does change it remains "behaviourally similar, thematically consistent, and, in about half the cases, they changed and evolved.", ie to something "behaviourally similar and thematically constant": see Table 4. An example of evolution of signature that is given is that of a post-mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment. In fact, a simple way of proving this is to refer you to Table 4 again, where all the examples of evolution of signature are given. As you will note the changes are all consistent with sexual homicide, and this is clearly what Schelsinger based his conclusions on.

What doesn't happen is a signature, consistent with sexual homicide, evolving into a signature consistent with a slow poisoner (see Table 4). If it did signature analysis would become completely useless as you would be unable to link such diametrically opposed behaviours.

[Batman]

What you are saying is that Chapman can be dismissed because there are no examples of a signature change like it.

I say prove Chapman didn't kill for financial gain and was too old to continue lust murders and prove he couldn't pause for long. Also demonstrate no whitechapel murders occurred during the poisoning of his wives.

[Batman]

In terms of financial gain, anything can happen. We don't even know how many ways in total Richard Leonard "The Iceman" Kuklinski killed his victims but poison, knife, gun, where all used. While not a lust killer it shows money as a motivating factor can influence things like this.

[Tecs]

Dear all,

We're getting really deep here but to take it back a step and take a looser look at it, I've always thought that Chapman/Klosowski is a viable suspect for several reasons but mainly the obvious one that is so often overlooked or underestimated, namely that thankfully, very few people have it within them to commit cold blooded murder. If we take out the vast majority of murders which are heat of the moment, rush of blood to the head killings, percentage wise the number of people actually capable of carrying out a cold blooded murder once let alone over and over, is thankfully, negligible. We see people's names thrown into the mix for Jack the Ripper so casually that we forget the bar is set very, very high in terms of actually being pyschologically capable of doing it. To put it simply, very, very few people would have been capable of carrying out multiple killings. Chapman we know was one, what are the statistical chances that by coincidence there just happened to be another one living in almost exactly the same place at the same time?

Also, I've always thought that although on the surface they look like sexual killings, there may be another motive. If, and I say if! the motive was obtaining organs for financial gain, then the type of person who would do that would be somebody completely cold, completely ruthless and so focussed on simply getting what they want that they are completely oblivious to any pain and suffering they are imposing. Exactly the thing Chapman did later on when he was getting rid of his unwanted attachments.

regards,