When did investigators start watching Kozminski?

[Batman]

Can you produce a single example of a serial killer who went from a MO that did not involve any physical contact at all, to a MO that maximized the physical contact?

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.

Furthermore, serial killers are creatures who quite often have fixed urges and wishes and that will be mirrored on the murder site. A serial killer who has a fixation about eyeballs, like Charles Albright, kills for that one and only reason and gouges the eyes out for that one and only reason. Why would he change his MO to poisoning if it did not satisfy that particular urge? It lacks credibility, I´m afraid, and the exact same thing goes for Chapman.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

Heck, he even dressed like a sailor at his trial.

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.

[Fisherman]

MO changes have been going on since the dawn of crime. We know criminals can change from one type of crime to another. Rap sheets are a testament to it. The question was if a very tiny segment of a low probability criminal called a serial killer would do it also.

It wasn't until the early 80s that the US made attempts to link many unsolved crimes to a common hand. So we have really only been collecting data scientifically of SKs now for roughly 40 years. In the last decade of that MO changes with SKs is becoming more obvious. This isn't because it's moderns times. It is because of our lateness in becoming aware of this expensive problem to the tax-payer (each SK can cost the State millions). They change MO for a lot of reasons but the main suspected reason is that they are going to be caught if they continue.



BTK, Dennis Rader, changed his MO. He stopped murdering families and woman living alone and became an arrogant compliance officer. He would treat people like crap, have their dogs put down, chase them out of the neighborhood and all done legally. The last victim was 1991 the year he took this job and there were no more murder victims. He was caught in 2005.

The Zodiac changed his MO from shooting couples in cars or near them to shooting taxi drivers. Then in a letter said he would completely change his MO and no more Zodiac murders (maybe one) were heard of again.

Joseph James DeAngelo had 3 MO changes. Visalia Ransacker. East Area Rapist. Original Night Stalker. They weren't even linked officially. EAR and ONS were eventually linked with DNA. He was linked to VR after he was caught. Yet some thought all 3 linked, but I am talking official positions.



Just like BTK. If he started off as a compliance officer harassing people and then became BTK, it would make more sense to you. But becoming BTK first and then a nasty compliance officer would be a non-starter for you.

Let's actually get to the heart of what we are talking about. THE SIGNATURE not MO. MO is simply a means to an end. The emotional need, the signature is what they want to do. Getting there by any means is fine. So MO can change to get there. MOs adapt as the SK becomes more familiar with their crimes. So MOs even change there. It's the change of signature, that is most concerning. From ripping up women to ... poisoning them. The question one should ask, is if this was sufficient for their signature. Was it enough emotional satisfaction. For BTK, just harassing people and being able to do it legally seemed to get him by. He had found a new signature that satisfied him.



Chapman had a small collection of books. I believe I have even read a list of stuff that was taken from him home somewhere and the Arisitotle works are listed. He also had a book called 'My Experiences as an Executioner' about hangmen and the rest were all medical books. As you can see from the images I posted, one of those books has illustrations of torsos, legless, flesh flaps open to reveal wombs and is a pretty warped book by today's standards because the author was partially guessing at many things. I think this can't be just overlooked given his position as a Ripper candidate. Heck, he even dressed like a sailor at his trial.

Can you produce a single example of a serial killer who went from a MO that did not involve any physical contact at all, to a MO that maximized the physical contact?

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.

Furthermore, serial killers are creatures who quite often have fixed urges and wishes and that will be mirrored on the murder site. A serial killer who has a fixation about eyeballs, like Charles Albright, kills for that one and only reason and gouges the eyes out for that one and only reason. Why would he change his MO to poisoning if it did not satisfy that particular urge? It lacks credibility, I´m afraid, and the exact same thing goes for Chapman. If you wish to speak about MO:s and signatures, that don´t change much - the Rippers signature was certainly not poisoning, but instead cutting into his victims with a knife and opening them up. The two men are worlds apart no matter which terms we use to describe them.

A sordid taste in books - if such a thing can be ascribed to him - is, as I said earlier, interesting per se. But it cannot be used as a counterweight to the ripping/poisoning matter, at least not in my book. Plus, as I said earlier, in that same book, Kelly and the 1873 torso victim fell prey to the same man. Who was not a thirteen year old boy who killed per telepathy...

So my no stands very firmly, I´m afraid.

As for your examples: Rader did not change his MO - he stopped killing.

Shooting a couple in a car or a taxidriver in a car is not an example of the Zodiac changing his MO. However, he did stab a couple at Lake Beryessa, so that is what you should use. Both methods are high in violence, though, and not a comparison that works when trying to explain going from knife eviscerations to poisoning.

De Angelo did not change his MO very much - he crept into houses and took unsignificant personal things in all three series. He stacked plates on the backs of husbands in overlapping series. He killed as a burglar and as a rapist. He was always, it seems, ready to apply lethal violence. If anything, that escalation in violence was something that followed him throughout his criminal career, making it look rather consistent in many ways. Many serial killers have begun by nicking underwear and suchlike, and many of them have had it said about them by concerned social workers that they are likely to escalate into much heavier crime if not handled.

The Chapman metamorphosis would be one with no comparison at all. I am not buying into it for a split second, and I never have.

[Robert]

Gary, it was actually "Harris Totle" which was a name that Harry Harris sometimes used. To add to his medical credentials he sometimes called himself "Galen" but desisted when neighbours started calling him "Gay Len."

[Batman]

I am also a believer in MO changes - but that owes more to how I think that many of todays´ fledgling serialists have learnt from history how changing the MO will have advantages when it comes to staying undetected. Changing MO and keeping on the move will allow many serial killers to stay clear from the police, that is my belief. In 1888, that sort of information was not there, and so I don´t think Chapman will have thought along those lines.

MO changes have been going on since the dawn of crime. We know criminals can change from one type of crime to another. Rap sheets are a testament to it. The question was if a very tiny segment of a low probability criminal called a serial killer would do it also.

It wasn't until the early 80s that the US made attempts to link many unsolved crimes to a common hand. So we have really only been collecting data scientifically of SKs now for roughly 40 years. In the last decade of that MO changes with SKs is becoming more obvious. This isn't because it's moderns times. It is because of our lateness in becoming aware of this expensive problem to the tax-payer (each SK can cost the State millions). They change MO for a lot of reasons but the main suspected reason is that they are going to be caught if they continue.

I therefore have large problems accepting the kind of MO changes I am asked to. It´s too big and too unsavoury a pill for my taste. Not least since he changed from eviscerator to poisoner!

BTK, Dennis Rader, changed his MO. He stopped murdering families and woman living alone and became an arrogant compliance officer. He would treat people like crap, have their dogs put down, chase them out of the neighborhood and all done legally. The last victim was 1991 the year he took this job and there were no more murder victims. He was caught in 2005.

The Zodiac changed his MO from shooting couples in cars or near them to shooting taxi drivers. Then in a letter said he would completely change his MO and no more Zodiac murders (maybe one) were heard of again.

Joseph James DeAngelo had 3 MO changes. Visalia Ransacker. East Area Rapist. Original Night Stalker. They weren't even linked officially. EAR and ONS were eventually linked with DNA. He was linked to VR after he was caught. Yet some thought all 3 linked, but I am talking official positions.

If it had been the other way around, it would have been marginally simpler to accept. But as it stands, it´s a complete non-starter in my book.

Just like BTK. If he started off as a compliance officer harassing people and then became BTK, it would make more sense to you. But becoming BTK first and then a nasty compliance officer would be a non-starter for you.

Let's actually get to the heart of what we are talking about. THE SIGNATURE not MO. MO is simply a means to an end. The emotional need, the signature is what they want to do. Getting there by any means is fine. So MO can change to get there. MOs adapt as the SK becomes more familiar with their crimes. So MOs even change there. It's the change of signature, that is most concerning. From ripping up women to ... poisoning them. The question one should ask, is if this was sufficient for their signature. Was it enough emotional satisfaction. For BTK, just harassing people and being able to do it legally seemed to get him by. He had found a new signature that satisfied him.

Chapman was a field or barber surgeon. Is it not likely that a person with that background may have kept books with the kind of pictures you speak of? I believe, working from memory, that Thomas Cutbush also had an interest in these kinds of pictures. He had a lot less reason to have them.
It is interesting, I admit that. But I think that the victorian society was one where there was a large interest in anatomical matters, as proven by the many anatomical wax museums, educating many working class people about such things.

Chapman had a small collection of books. I believe I have even read a list of stuff that was taken from him home somewhere and the Arisitotle works are listed. He also had a book called 'My Experiences as an Executioner' about hangmen and the rest were all medical books. As you can see from the images I posted, one of those books has illustrations of torsos, legless, flesh flaps open to reveal wombs and is a pretty warped book by today's standards because the author was partially guessing at many things. I think this can't be just overlooked given his position as a Ripper candidate. Heck, he even dressed like a sailor at his trial.

[Fisherman]

And no serial killer has , by complete fluke , found that his last two victims out of five (which is still the opinion of the overwhelming majority)were both using the same false name on the night in question .
No serial killer has carefully removed a kidney in complete darkness, on his knees in the rain, in a few short minutes ....
It just doesn't happen

JTR can not and should never be compared to a serial killer
The idea that this was one man running around with a knife doesn't fit the known evidence

Once people step outside the box to think they may wake up and smell the coffee

In Northern Ireland through the seventies and eighties there were two series of killings in the same small country at the same time .
They would have been similar in nature but not identical..... nobody would ever suggest they were carried out by the same hand

JTR and the torso murders are examples of 'series of killings'..... not a serial killer in the way most people think

If there was not a serial killer - or two serial killers - then there will have been a number of eviscerating killers around.
How many of them were there, Packers? And who killed which victim?

And if no serial killer can remove a kidney à la the Eddowes murder (which did not take place "in complete darkness") - who can? And did? Please don´t tell me it happened at the morgue!

[Fisherman]

You objected to the comment, which for some reason you chose to beleive included you.
And that is exactly what I posted, so it is not I who has misunderstood what was written.

in post 133 you acknowledge there were two other bodies which were of interest, which i commented on in post 134, and wondered why you were therefore objecting to the original post 119, which did not refer to your good self at all.

It seems that maybe with have both misunderstood each other to a degree.


Steve

I cannot remember when I last had an exchange with you that did not involve "misunderstandings", Steve. For some peculiar reason, they pop up alongside you whenever you surface. And when I point it out, you serve up looooong and complex posts that essentially make things worse. Inevitably, this results in how the topic being initially discussed is altered for a meta-discussion that has nothing at all to do with what should be discussed.

I really can´t be bothered any further about it this time. All I am saying and trying to get through is that whatever comments I am making about the relevance of the two dead women in Regent´s Canal, these comments serve the purpose of describing MY take on things. And when you now write that I "acknowledge" that they are of interest, I am not even going to care about how you make that sound as if I had earlier denied it or not commented on my stance about it.

If you want to describe it all as an instance of us both getting things wrong, then fine. I just wish that there was some sort of debate possible between us that did not end up like this, but it would seem that is a forlorn hope.

I have said all I am going to say about the matter, and spent all the time on it that I will allow for. If you have more to say, and want me to comment on it, I will therefore apologize in advance for not doing so. Enough is enough.

[MrBarnett]

Not my cup of tea, Simon. Besides, the Telegraph article is five years old.

It would have been a bit more interesting if it had, "George Chapman, his book" on the flyleaf.

And even more interesting if it had "To George, best wishes from Aristotle" too.

Rhyming slang?

Aris(totle) = Bottle = Bottle and glass = Arse?

[Batman]

The Whitechapel murders were not the work of a serial killer. That idea is folklore, not history.

Simon, can you please explain what you mean by this. Thanks.

[Robert]

Not my cup of tea, Simon. Besides, the Telegraph article is five years old.

It would have been a bit more interesting if it had, "George Chapman, his book" on the flyleaf.

And even more interesting if it had "To George, best wishes from Aristotle" too.

[Batman]

And no serial killer has , by complete fluke , found that his last two victims out of five (which is still the opinion of the overwhelming majority)were both using the same false name on the night in question .
No serial killer has carefully removed a kidney in complete darkness, on his knees in the rain, in a few short minutes ....
It just doesn't happen

JTR can not and should never be compared to a serial killer
The idea that this was one man running around with a knife doesn't fit the known evidence

Once people step outside the box to think they may wake up and smell the coffee

In Northern Ireland through the seventies and eighties there were two series of killings in the same small country at the same time .
They would have been similar in nature but not identical..... nobody would ever suggest they were carried out by the same hand

JTR and the torso murders are examples of 'series of killings'..... not a serial killer in the way most people think

Can you elaborate more, please? Also, are you talking about the Shankill Butchers?

[Elamarna]

You are either a bit slow when it comes to understanding written language or deliberately leading astray here.

You wrote "Your previous post objected most strongly to my comment that some supporters of Lechmere claim murders upto 1899 may be by the same hand."

I VERY clearly said that I have NOT objected to any other matter than how I felt I was included in the tally of people you regarded as having claimed that Lechmere killed up to 1899.

So do not move the goalposts, if you please.

What I say stands: I personally believe that the two dead women found in Regents Canal are interesting since Charles Lechmere had a stall nearby.

That is MY view, and I am not commenting on how others may feel. Therefore I cannot possibly have "objected very strongly" about your ideas about what they think.

I am sure that you can give twisting this matter a go too - you are quite resourceful in that department, it would seem.

No matter what response you deliver (I only rule out an apology on your behalf for having misunderstood me), this is all I have to say about the matter. It markedly differs from what you claim I have said, and that is why I point it out.

You objected to the comment, which for some reason you chose to beleive included you.
And that is exactly what I posted, so it is not I who has misunderstood what was written.

in post 133 you acknowledge there were two other bodies which were of interest, which i commented on in post 134, and wondered why you were therefore objecting to the original post 119, which did not refer to your good self at all.

It seems that maybe with have both misunderstood each other to a degree.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes,I certainly agree it has gone too far, you have not been misrepresented in the slightest.

my post 119 merely said some supporters of Lechmere propose that the torso's not only are linked to the whitechapel series but did not finish in 1889 as Abby had posted.



It is an undeniable fact that such suggestions have been made, yet because of that we get all this detracting from the debate. i truly despair.



Steve

You are either a bit slow when it comes to understanding written language or deliberately leading astray here.

You wrote "Your previous post objected most strongly to my comment that some supporters of Lechmere claim murders upto 1899 may be by the same hand."

I VERY clearly said that I have NOT objected to any other matter than how I felt I was included in the tally of people you regarded as having claimed that Lechmere killed up to 1899.

So do not move the goalposts, if you please.

What I say stands: I personally believe that the two dead women found in Regents Canal are interesting since Charles Lechmere had a stall nearby.

That is MY view, and I am not commenting on how others may feel. Therefore I cannot possibly have "objected very strongly" about your ideas about what they think.

I am sure that you can give twisting this matter a go too - you are quite resourceful in that department, it would seem.

No matter what response you deliver (I only rule out an apology on your behalf for having misunderstood me), this is all I have to say about the matter. It markedly differs from what you claim I have said, and that is why I point it out.

[Elamarna]

No, I did not. I objected to any inference that I personally would have said that it was a done deal. The two cases are of great interest for reasons given, but that is all that has been said by me.

Please, please, please don´t misrepresent what I say. It has gone way too far way too many times, and ought not be repeated once more.

Yes,I certainly agree it has gone too far, you have not been misrepresented in the slightest.

my post 119 merely said some supporters of Lechmere propose that the torso's not only are linked to the whitechapel series but did not finish in 1889 as Abby had posted.



It is an undeniable fact that such suggestions have been made, there was no suggestion that you had made any such comments, and then it was claimed I had twisted the reply to infer you denied that the inclusion of later victims was possible:

"how on earth can you twist that into a denial on my behalf that the bodies can be included in a possible count...?"



When actually I said the exact opposite:

"I see however from your remarks that you are actually not denying that later Bodies are indeed includied in the possible count, why then the objection? "


Because of that we get all this detracting from the debate. I truly despair!



Steve

[packers stem]

No two serial killers will simultaneously cut the belly open all the way, pluck out uteri and cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps. It just does not happen.

And no serial killer has , by complete fluke , found that his last two victims out of five (which is still the opinion of the overwhelming majority)were both using the same false name on the night in question .
No serial killer has carefully removed a kidney in complete darkness, on his knees in the rain, in a few short minutes ....
It just doesn't happen

JTR can not and should never be compared to a serial killer
The idea that this was one man running around with a knife doesn't fit the known evidence

Once people step outside the box to think they may wake up and smell the coffee

In Northern Ireland through the seventies and eighties there were two series of killings in the same small country at the same time .
They would have been similar in nature but not identical..... nobody would ever suggest they were carried out by the same hand

JTR and the torso murders are examples of 'series of killings'..... not a serial killer in the way most people think