Jack had to slip up

[NOV9]

If a killer changes his MO... let's say he poisons and then dismembers them for a time, then he shoots them and puts them in the woodchipper and feeds them to the hogs, how can one tell that the signature is the same?

Mike

Mike,

MO and signature are different.

poisons and then dismembers them for a time, then he shoots them and puts them in the woodchipper and feeds them to the hogs, how can one tell that the signature is the same?

would be the signature, he would never change.
All you have said is the signature.

[c.d.]

Signatures are the only way the killer truly expresses himself.

The killer may change his MO, but he will never change his signature.

Jack's signature was constant, you can see it in his kills and the change in signature indicated that the killer of Mary Kelly was clearly not Jack

Hi Nov 9,

How are you defining Jack's signature?

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

The killer may change his MO, but he will never change his signature.

If a killer changes his MO... let's say he poisons and then dismembers them for a time, then he shoots them and puts them in the woodchipper and feeds them to the hogs, how can one tell that the signature is the same?

Mike

[NOV9]

This is a look into the killers mind, why is it important for him to leave signature after the kill. Necrosadism mutilating the corpse, is signature.

Mary Kelly, and Eddowes have the killers signature. As well as the others.

As you know signature tells allot about the killer, what he thinks, how he feels, why he hates prostitutes.

What I'm looking for here, is if someone on this site would like to discuss signature killers? in the hope of understanding the killer or killers of Whitechapel.

Signatures are the only way the killer truly expresses himself.

The killer may change his MO, but he will never change his signature.

Jack's signature was constant, you can see it in his kills and the change in signature indicated that the killer of Mary Kelly was clearly not Jack

[NOV9]

With all due respect, with your repetition it appears you are the one struggling with the evidence.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

It was a glitch, in the software.

So do you want to discuss Jack's Signature?

[Doctor X]

With all due respect, with your repetition it appears you are the one struggling with the evidence.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[NOV9]

NOV9, you posted:



and then:



How on earth could you get the idea that someone with a mental disorder that is explicitly classified as sadistic somehow isn't a sadist?

That doesn't even require any knowledge of psychology, it's just simple English. Someone with narcissistic personality disorder is a narcissist. A person who acts on cannibalistic desires is a cannibal. Someone who kills is a killer.

Dan,

You are still missing the point; I’m wasting my time discussing this with you.
You seem to be struggling with this.

So lets just drop it OK.

[NOV9]

NOV9, you posted:



and then:



How on earth could you get the idea that someone with a mental disorder that is explicitly classified as sadistic somehow isn't a sadist?

That doesn't even require any knowledge of psychology, it's just simple English. Someone with narcissistic personality disorder is a narcissist. A person who acts on cannibalistic desires is a cannibal. Someone who kills is a killer.

Dan,

You are still missing the point; I’m wasting my time discussing this with you, so lets just drop it OK.

This discussion is over.

[NOV9]

The Killers Signature

This is a look into the killers mind, why is it important for him to leave signature after the kill. Necrosadism mutilating the corpse, is signature.

Mary Kelly, and Eddowes have the killers signature. As well as the others.

As you know signature tells allot about the killer, what he thinks, how he feels, why he hates prostitutes.

What I'm looking for here, is if someone on this site would like to discuss signature killers? in the hope of understanding the killer or killers of Whitechapel.

[Dan Norder]

NOV9, you posted:

Jack was a sexual sadistic killer, neither Jack nor Mary's killer was sadist.

and then:

This does not sound like a sadist; it sounds sadistic but definitely not sadist.

How on earth could you get the idea that someone with a mental disorder that is explicitly classified as sadistic somehow isn't a sadist?

That doesn't even require any knowledge of psychology, it's just simple English. Someone with narcissistic personality disorder is a narcissist. A person who acts on cannibalistic desires is a cannibal. Someone who kills is a killer.

[NOV9]

Oh well I guess Mr. Dan is not a forgiving man.

As I was saying, after some thought on this sadist, Sam was right, Jack was a sexual sadistic killer, neither Jack nor Mary's killer was sadist. Jack did enjoy hurting his victim, but he did not torture them, simply because a Sadist wants to keep them alive as long as possible, in order to for fill his fantasy of inflicting pain. Can you say that Jack was doing that?

Reference Mike Debardeleben, he was the meanest, Sadist than anyone past or present.

I have to post this.

Necrosadism
Sexual gratification derived by mutilating corpses.

This does not sound like a sadist; it sounds sadistic but definitely not sadist.

OK I got my point across, enough said.

[NOV9]

Gentlemen,

Lets be friends. Just because we do not agree, does not mean we can’t get along. Really what does it matter? Who is right or wrong about sadist killers? I have read the text on this sexual sadist, and I do not agree with the experts. so what ?

Sometimes I forget that I’m on a site that is investigating a 120-year-old murder, and having discussions with people of all walks of life, and with different opinions. You must forgive me for taking this so seriously. In my line of business I see the worst of people all the time. And I bring the burnt toast to this site.

I will not do this again.

Dan with your background, maybe I could pick your brain for thoughts on signature, if you can excuse my ignorance.

NOV9

Oh well I guess Mr. Dan is not a forgiving man.

As I was saying, after some thought on this sadist, Sam was right, Jack was a sexual sadistic killer, neither Jack nor Mary's killer was sadist. Jack did enjoy hurting his victim, but he did not torture them, simply because a Sadist wants to keep them alive as long as possible, in order to for fill his fantasy of inflicting pain. Can you say that Jack was doing that?

Reference Mike Debardeleben, he was the meanest, Sadist than anyone past or present.

[NOV9]

No offense, but there's nothing to drag on. Insisting that the people I named were not sadists doesn't change the fact that they were. If you don't know what you're talking about, and refuse to believe it even when the APA's diagnostic manual description is pointed out to you, then there's no hope of changing your mind.

Gentlemen,

Lets be friends. Just because we do not agree, does not mean we can’t get along. Really what does it matter? Who is right or wrong about sadist killers? I have read the text on this sexual sadist, and I do not agree with the experts. so what ?

Sometimes I forget that I’m on a site that is investigating a 120-year-old murder, and having discussions with people of all walks of life, and with different opinions. You must forgive me for taking this so seriously. In my line of business I see the worst of people all the time. And I bring the burnt toast to this site.

I will not do this again.

Dan with your background, maybe I could pick your brain for thoughts on signature, if you can excuse my ignorance.

NOV9

[paul emmett]

Doesn't a lot of this have to do with definitions? I agreed with Dan's point regarding the sadism of JTR before any disagreement arose. And even though I do not study serial killers besides Jack, my gut response to the question of which ones were sadists was, "All of 'em!" So now I look under sadism in Pontalis's THE LANGUAGE OF PSYCHOANALYSIS, and find, "cases where there is an association between sexuality and violence used against others."

So for me, with this definition, done deal. JTR, sadist.

[Dan Norder]

No offense, but there's nothing to drag on. Insisting that the people I named were not sadists doesn't change the fact that they were. If you don't know what you're talking about, and refuse to believe it even when the APA's diagnostic manual description is pointed out to you, then there's no hope of changing your mind.