When did investigators start watching Kozminski?

[Batman]

Probably? What change could be bigger...?

I have pointed this out several times but maybe I need to actually go into the details.

BTK murdered a family violently. He was a bondage freak. He strangled/suffocated most of his victims. This was a close one to one contact with a victim. He murdered 10 people this way.

His last victim was 1991.

14 years later, and with no murders, or even so much as an assault, we find Rader is still breaking the law and gaining power over women and families, but in a totally different way. He is a compliance officer using this as cover to extract psychological terror on his victims. He doesn't even touch them. One of his victims was his co-worker Mary Capps. She is psychologically damaged because of him. He was patrolling looking for dog poop so he could deliberately invade people's lives. Measured their lawn height with a yardstick.

Here is one of his victims - https://youtu.be/UHPz931jO3A?t=2005

It was being the "King of Park City" that satisfied him.

From Serial Killer to Compliance Officer. He wasn't even murdering. Chapman poisoned.

[Batman]

That should go without saying - and I never claimed anything along those lines, did I? What I instead said - and what you seemingly deny - is that media will have had a large impact on the thinking process of the serial killers of the modern world.

MO may have changed from the advent of serial crime, but the press and media coverage will have played a large role for todays killers.

No media coverage, though, will ever have reported on a serial killer who went from eviscerations to poisoning. Where are the examples of such or parallel matters I asked for, Batman?

PS. What should we call a serialist who goes from eviscerations to poisoning? "The poiscerator"? "The multitask killer"?
Oh, wait, Iīve got it: "The Jack of all trades killer"!

I am not denying that they can learn from others. I am just refuting the idea Chapman wouldn't have changed a MO because it's a modern thing.

I said that is no reason to reject that he can change his MO because he can come up with the idea himself. If you accept that latter, that he can independently acquire such knowledge meaning he can change his MO. So no barrier there. That's all I have been saying on this point and haven't changed it.

[Fisherman]

ive never ruled out Chapman on difference in MO/sig from being the ripper-ive actually got him in my top tier of valid suspects.

its hard to rule him out also because of all the other things hes got going for him-suspected by the most reliable cop on the scene, was their right in the thick of it at the time, known serial killer of women. he also threatened one of his wives with a knife and was abusive towards all. Known surgical experience.
witness descriptions dont rule him out.


that being said, the change in MO AND sig is pretty big-if he was the ripper, probably the biggest change ever for a serial killer.

Probably? What change could be bigger...?

[Fisherman]

No, what I am saying is that your exclusion of independently acquired MOs is also an explanation, which explains why changing MO has been happening since the advent of serial crimes.

I think you didn't factor in that these 'skills' can be independently acquired. Serial Killers need not read about other Serial Killers to be the same as them in many departments.

That should go without saying - and I never claimed anything along those lines, did I? What I instead said - and what you seemingly deny - is that media will have had a large impact on the thinking process of the serial killers of the modern world.

MO may have changed from the advent of serial crime, but the press and media coverage will have played a large role for todays killers.

No media coverage, though, will ever have reported on a serial killer who went from eviscerations to poisoning. Where are the examples of such or parallel matters I asked for, Batman?

PS. What should we call a serialist who goes from eviscerations to poisoning? "The poiscerator"? "The multitask killer"?
Oh, wait, Iīve got it: "The Jack of all trades killer"!

[Abby Normal]

ive never ruled out Chapman on difference in MO/sig from being the ripper-ive actually got him in my top tier of valid suspects.

its hard to rule him out also because of all the other things hes got going for him-suspected by the most reliable cop on the scene, was their right in the thick of it at the time, known serial killer of women. he also threatened one of his wives with a knife and was abusive towards all. Known surgical experience.
witness descriptions dont rule him out.


that being said, the change in MO AND sig is pretty big-if he was the ripper, probably the biggest change ever for a serial killer.

[Batman]

So to your mind, no fledgling serial killer has ever read about Ted Bundys exploits and thought to himself "Wow, he stayed undetected by killing in different states. Thatīs a good tip!"
That has not happened and that is not something new? No?

No, what I am saying is that your exclusion of independently acquired MOs is also an explanation, which explains why changing MO has been happening since the advent of serial crimes.

I think you didn't factor in that these 'skills' can be independently acquired. Serial Killers need not read about other Serial Killers to be the same as them in many departments.

[Batman]

I don't think it does. Be precise in your wording, please; it goes a long way to being precise in one's thinking. And I mean that in a friendly way.Sorry, I can't read that and, as I don't subscribe to the website, I can't magnify it either. It might help if you'd provided a transcription of the relevant passage(s). I take your word for it, though, but I would point out that this the newspaper was, again, reporting his appearance at the police court prior to his trial. Besides, a peaked cap and a blue suit doesn't a sailor's costume make (what kind of sailor wears a suit, anyway?), so your assertion that he "dressed like a sailor at his trial" is a bit of an exaggeration at best.

If you have the book I referenced it referenced that article and a few others. Do you have that book?

Here is a quote from the book.

Pressmen saw Chapman for the very first time. The Daily Mail said he appeared ‘haggard and distressed’, and that his fingers ‘clutched in agitation’ at his nautical pilot’s cap. The blue of his double-breasted, serge sailor’s suit ‘intensified his pallor, and he seemed to feel the full significance of the accusation’.

WOJTCZAK, HELENA. Jack the Ripper at Last? The Mysterious Murders of George Chapman. (Kindle Locations 2095-2117). Hastings Press. Kindle Edition.

[Batman]

Poisoning somebody whilst feigning to care for them is not an extremely sadistic thing to do at all. It only turns sadistic when the victim is informed about how they are being put slowly to death. Sadism is, you see, about inflicting pain. Once the victim is unaware about it, it is not sadism. It is heartless and condemnable, but not sadism.

I beg to differ. You seem to be conflating types of torture with sadism. Sadism is receiving gratification by inflicting pain on someone but the victim doesn't have to be aware of the deliberate act and they certainly don't have to be aware of the identity of who is doing it. Victim unawareness of the person inflicting the pain is not a barrier to the sadist inflicting it for it to be sadism or sadistic.

Furthermore, despite JtR being a ripper, he did not torture his victims. He deliberately severed their necks down to the spinal cord, and not just the windpipe. He cut through jugulars down to the bone. A few seconds and instant unconsciousness. They didn't know they were being ripped. They died not knowing it was Jack the Ripper who did it.

If your belief is that sadism requires that a person knows they are a victim of sadism, then we shall disagree on this.

Your examples were not three good examples at all. Nor were they examples of how a serial killer can go from an extreme form of body contact violence to one where no contact is there at all, the way you suggest Chapman could have done.

Yes I did. BTK did exactly this. Serial killer to a compliance officer that terrorized people. He didn't have to touch them physically. He just found ways to make their life hell. He had their dogs put down. Claimed they weren't being tied up. He was untying them.

Zodiac at Lake Berryessa stabbed his victims sitting on them and straddling them. One survived. For his next murder Zodiac instantly shot a man in the head. They are completely different types of murders. One is not instant and extremely painful over a long period of time (even if the intention was murder) and the other was instant. Not an escalation. He took a piece of Stein's shirt. That's the amount of 'contact' he had with the body.

You are mistaken about how the Golden State killer was not found out before DNA was used. There were suspicions amongst the detectives following the respective cases, and DNA only confirmed what they had been saying for the longest. See, I HAVE studied up to some little degree!

You need to read more about it. Shelby describes what happened quite well. Some officers linked Visalia ransacker to East Area Rapist and NOT the Original Night Stalker. Sacramento PD didn't accept the VR, EAR connection. There was some suspicion that the ONS attacks were linked years into those murders and they were not linked to EAR. Innocent people were arrested for some of those ONS crimes which originally were thought to be the work of the Bedroom basher. The FBI didn't even link VR to EARONS in their composites despite the VR composite matching the Maggiore attacks and even THESE attacks were not formally linked as EAR crimes before that. JJD was changing his MO several times over before the FBI even figured out what MOs and signatures were.

Criminals can independently acquire the same MOs without learning from someone else. A common example is how some criminals lie to their victims to put them at ease to make them easier to manage. Independently you don't have to read about changing your MO when the heat is on you to figure out that changing MO will help you avoid detection. That's plainly obvious.

[Sam Flynn]

There is another one describing him as a sailor.

I don't think it does. Be precise in your wording, please; it goes a long way to being precise in one's thinking. And I mean that in a friendly way.

Daily Mail, 28th October 1902.

https://newspaperarchive.com/london-...t-28-1902-p-3/

Sorry, I can't read that and, as I don't subscribe to the website, I can't magnify it either. It might help if you'd provided a transcription of the relevant passage(s). I take your word for it, though, but I would point out that this the newspaper was, again, reporting his appearance at the police court prior to his trial. Besides, a peaked cap and a blue suit doesn't a sailor's costume make (what kind of sailor wears a suit, anyway?), so your assertion that he "dressed like a sailor at his trial" is a bit of an exaggeration at best.

[Fisherman]

Joseph James Deangelo changed his MO a few times in the span of 1974-1986. This is well before even the FBI launched it's serial database, which was concluded in 1979 for deployment in the field. It wasn't even until the 80s that a proper forensic understanding of Serial killers had somewhat taken shape, and when it did, JJD had stopped all of his activities (to our current knowledge). So even before the FBI was considering what a signature was and how MOs related to serial killers, let alone finding out recently that MOs and signatures can change, JJD was doing it a decade beforehand.

The factors for why they change MO and signature have always existed. They are not new factors. The heat on them, environmental changes, new opportunities for example. These factors have always existed. There is no reason to think a new discovery means a modern thing. Everything suggests it is not.

So to your mind, no fledgling serial killer has ever read about Ted Bundys exploits and thought to himself "Wow, he stayed undetected by killing in different states. Thatīs a good tip!"
That has not happened and that is not something new? No?

And no fledgling serial killer has arrived at the conclusion that similarities like putting pebbles in a victims vagina, gouging out the eyes, cutting the genitalia away and such things, are what makes the police conclude that there is a serial killer on the loose? No? That has not made any serial killer think "Maybe I should not do that, because that will give me away"?

Serial killers do not read about other serial killers and use it to their advantage? Or?

Have you noticed how many serialists have set their sights on being the most prolific one? Why do they do such a thing, and how do they know about other serialistsī exploits? Could it be that they take an active interest in what is written about these killers, and aired on television and the net? Or is that not a viable suggestion?

Are they all exactly the same as they always were, uninterested in or oblivious about what goes on in the serial killing world?

Maybe you should study up on that, Batman.

[Fisherman]

MO changing is a fact of the professional literature on the matter. Instead of bringing a rope, bring handcuffs. This is a MO change.

Not only that but a static signature is false. Approx. 50% of serial offenders with signatures say they experimented with it. So much so that some offenders get upset when their murders are not linked. They even contact LE to tell them it was them.

Poisoning someone slowly and being around as they die over the course of weeks if not months, is extremely sadistic. That's a warped pleasure that lasts a long time. When the person dies the pleasure is gone. Hence why Chapman got more to poison. He enjoyed it obviously. Also, we don't know if he was committing ripper crimes elsewhere in between.

Linking the torso murders and JtR is also a change of MO and signature.

The barriers once erected to disqualify George Chapman as JtR are simply false by today's standards. Those barriers were that he murdered women differently to JtR. That is no barrier.

He had a different opportunity to murder women and the environment under which the JtR murders took place had changed dramatically. Whitechapel got lit up.

The examples I gave are three good examples of MO and signature changes. Studying up on MO changes with BTK, the Zodiac and EARONS demonstrate they are doing it.

Zodiac murdering Stein in his cab is absolutely a change of MO. He was murdering a male (no female), an older male, in the city, by taking his cab. It would NEVER have been linked to the Zodiac if it wasn't for the Zodiac writing in to claim responsibility and sending them a bloody shirt. The Zodiac even understood his change of MO meant they would not associate him with the crime, so he got the shirt piece for that reason. To make sure they knew it was him. You seem to think the Lake Berryessa attack was a change of MO. In a way it was, so that's 2 changes in the Zodiac killings before he claims he will change MO and vanishes.

Rader had to write to LE to claim responsibility for crimes they didn't think linked. That's because his MO changed. Rader was very much spending his time outside of murder, putting community members through hell. They are alive to talk about it. Even his collegues realized he was getting off on being in a position of power. It was satisfing enough for him. From family murderer to militant compliance officer. It worked for him. What didn't work is that he still wanted to taunt LE. Which is what caught him.

EARONS is absolutely an MO change. EAR and ONS where never connected until DNA. VR was connected after the arrest. Even the ONS crimes were not connected up until DNA. They thought it was the 'bedroom basher' a different criminal.

In short, serial killers who are involved in bloody murders don't always need blood to satisfy their urges when carrying out a murder. That's the myth.

New opportunities change that. No environments change that. Not just heat from the law.

There is no barrier preventing Chapman from being JtR. Like none. No matter how much one tries to erect psychological interpretations that are some sort of a wall, these turn out to be false, when we look into the actual criminal data. There is no barrier to Chapman except the one's people erect themselves.

That doesn't mean he MUST be JtR. It just means reasons given supposedly preventing him, are very weak.

Maybe I should "study up" on these matters, just like you have done, Batman. Until that time, though, I must make do with what I already know.

For example, I know that sadism can take many shapes. There is physical sadism and pshychological sadism. And sure enough, one and the same person can engage in both types, like for example the Golden State killer, who not only tormented his victims physically, but also called them up afterwards to inflict more pain.
The question is: When he was given the chance to kill, how did he go about it? Well, he went about it by inflicting physical damage every time he had the chance. He also threatened his victims to kill them, and that can of course be seen as psychological sadism. But would such a man be likely to turn to poisoning, without letting his victims know that he was killing them slowly?
Not a chance, Iīm afraid. To him, it was of the utmost importance to impose upon his victims that HE was in charge and HE made the calls.

Poisoning somebody whilst feigning to care for them is not an extremely sadistic thing to do at all. It only turns sadistic when the victim is informed about how they are being put slowly to death. Sadism is, you see, about inflicting pain. Once the victim is unaware about it, it is not sadism. It is heartless and condemnable, but not sadism.

Your examples were not three good examples at all. Nor were they examples of how a serial killer can go from an extreme form of body contact violence to one where no contact is there at all, the way you suggest Chapman could have done.

You are mistaken about how the Golden State killer was not found out before DNA was used. There were suspicions amongst the detectives following the respective cases, and DNA only confirmed what they had been saying for the longest. See, I HAVE studied up to some little degree!

You write "In short, serial killers who are involved in bloody murders don't always need blood to satisfy their urges when carrying out a murder. That's the myth."

If there is an urge to inflict physical damage within a series of killings, it is utterly improbable that the perp will turn to a type of murders that will physically distance himself from his victims. If you donīt agree, you are welcome to post examples of serial killers who have transformed like this.

In accordance with that, far from being "very weak", the implications involved in two murder series one involving opisoning and one involving massive physical damage and eviscerations are clearly against any coupling.

Saying that it is a mere bagatelle is easy enough. You will find it a lot harder to prove your point by exemplifying, I think...

[Batman]

As for your claim that changes in MO are not a product of modern times and the information flow about how and why serial killers either stay in the clear or get caught, I simply disagree. It will be a heavily weighing factor.

Joseph James Deangelo changed his MO a few times in the span of 1974-1986. This is well before even the FBI launched it's serial database, which was concluded in 1979 for deployment in the field. It wasn't even until the 80s that a proper forensic understanding of Serial killers had somewhat taken shape, and when it did, JJD had stopped all of his activities (to our current knowledge). So even before the FBI was considering what a signature was and how MOs related to serial killers, let alone finding out recently that MOs and signatures can change, JJD was doing it a decade beforehand.

The factors for why they change MO and signature have always existed. They are not new factors. The heat on them, environmental changes, new opportunities for example. These factors have always existed. There is no reason to think a new discovery means a modern thing. Everything suggests it is not.

[Batman]

A navy blue suit, which has nothing to do with sailors, and the cap was described simply as a peaked cap, not a "sailor peaked" one.

"Mr. H.J. Sydney appeared for Chapman, who is a pale-faced, middle-aged man, with black curly hair, and a long drooping moustache. He was dressed in a shabby navy blue suit, and carried a peaked cap of the same material in his hand"

That description is of what he looked like for his police court appearance, prior to his trial. The mere fact that he wore a blue suit and had a peaked cap, both rather common items, does constitute "dressing like a sailor".

There is another one describing him as a sailor.

Daily Mail, 28th October 1902.

https://newspaperarchive.com/london-daily-mail-oct-28-1902-p-3/

Actually described him wearing a nautical cap.

I believe it is either this one or another that described his suit as serge sailor’s suit

This is all in Wojtczak's Jack the Ripper at Last? The Mysterious Murders of George Chapman. Hastings Press.

[Sam Flynn]

If you read accounts of him at trial, he wore a sailor blue suit and a sailor peaked cap. They describe him as sailor looking.

A navy blue suit, which has nothing to do with sailors, and the cap was described simply as a peaked cap, not a "sailor peaked" one.

"Mr. H.J. Sydney appeared for Chapman, who is a pale-faced, middle-aged man, with black curly hair, and a long drooping moustache. He was dressed in a shabby navy blue suit, and carried a peaked cap of the same material in his hand"

That description is of what he looked like for his police court appearance, prior to his trial. The mere fact that he wore a blue suit and had a peaked cap, both rather common items, does constitute "dressing like a sailor".

[Batman]

I'm not aware that he "dressed like a sailor" at his trial. He looked rather smartly and soberly attired in the illustrations I've seen.

If you read accounts of him at trial, he wore a sailor blue suit and a sailor peaked cap. They describe him as sailor looking.