Jack had to slip up

[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

[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.

[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.

[NOV9]

Hi Nov 9,

How are you defining Jack's signature?

c.d.

c.d.,

Mike just created a signature, so whenever you see the same thing again, you would know that it was the same killer.

A killer stays constant with signature his calling card if you will.

[The Good Michael]

No

M.O. would be he poisons them in whatever way he does it (sneaking into rooms and putting it in their tea, whatever) Dismembering would be the signature.

Later on in life he decides to just shoot victims on the street because it's easier.
He then sticks them in a wood chipper and feeds the bits to the pigs. M.O. is different and so is signature.

I guess the theme is the same: Dead people. So if that is what you want to call signature, then it doesn't change. Yet, it's pretty broad, isn't it? If he gets a kick out of feeding them to the pigs, then signature has changed.

Mike

[perrymason]

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

Well, we cant know the MO by that breakdown Mike, but the Signatures aren't the same by virtue of his different methodology and perceived objectives, but your point is good, if indeed we are talking about 1 killer changing habits here.

I think what NOV 9 is getting at is the way he finds them, the way he lures them, the way he attacks them,...lowers them, and only then uses his knife for a kill cut,.. very likely was the structure used by the killer of Polly, Annie, perhaps Liz, and Kate.

So one has abdominal cuts but no organ taken, and only one has a kidney taken, 2 have Uteri taken, 1 has no abdominal cuts, and one is taken apart indoors, with a heart taken.

I think that the Canonical Group is clearly based on the assumption that he did change and alter his individual objectives, but I think in error, because it did not consider the potentially habitual process present in the first 4 of the 5 killings, and it disregarded the possibility that he was seeking specific organs, and would never have omitted a yard abdominal surgery unless caught in the act....and since Blackwell says Liz was cut between 12:46 and 12:56, we cannot assume he was interrupted by Diemshutz there.

As for the thread title....Ive been wondering exactly how much we can learn from some of the suspects hats. Would it be a "slip up", if he was a sailor and wore a sailors hat for example?

My best regards.

[jc007]

Dan Norder,

The fact that you shove in peoples faces your belief that JtR was a sexual sadist does not make him one, nor does it not make him one.

You said earlier in this thread, that no one has given any evidence that JtR was not a sadist, nor can you give any evidence or proof that he definatly without doubt was one.

Shoving your opinions down peoples throats and jumping up and down saying "he is, he is, he is" doesn't make it fact, just makes it your opinion that can NOT be conclusively proved one way or the other.

Oh and for the record i don't think he was a sadistic sexual killer, a sadist according to the dictionary is:a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others so it seems to me in order to get gratification by inflicting pain on someone then that someone would have to be alive to do it, yet the ripper killed his victims very quickly, not the act of someone who would get pleasure out of seeing them suffer physically or mentally, you really don't have a compelling arguement for this yet you seem determinded to be right regardless of the fact your dead wrong.

He may have gotten some kind of pleasure out of mutilating his victims, or taking away parts of thier bodies but its highly unlikely regardless of what you say that he was a sadist.

[c.d.]

I think that we have to bear in mind that Jack was not operating in a vacuum. What he did would certainly be dictated by his victim and the circumstances. It would be foolish to expect every kill to be exactly alike.

c.d.

[perrymason]

I think that we have to bear in mind that Jack was not operating in a vacuum. What he did would certainly be dictated by his victim and the circumstances. It would be foolish to expect every kill to be exactly alike.

c.d.

Hi cd,

Absolutely, we shouldn't expect every kill to be identical, different night, different women, different streets and yards and squares, different level of injuries....all could be factors, but what Im getting at is that if each killing had an objective, and if that objective was the obtaining of organs from the female abdomen, ...using three of the first 4 murders that can be argued I think, and without the sole victim with a single throat cut that may have been made while she was falling, not lying down...you have continuity...even with the differences in each victims wounds. Thats allowing for change and new features, but recognizing that if he does something perhaps 3 times in three attempts...omitting Liz, likely killed by Broadshouldered Man anyway,....then considering the circumstantial evidence of Millers Court, the 5th and last murder was the only one of the 3 with abdominal wounds prior, that did not clearly demonstrate a preoccupation with taking away any abdominal organs. In fact the one most coveted, by virtue it is the only one taken twice, is cut free, and just left there, placed by Mary.

Best Regards cd.

[NOV9]

Signature

M.O. is different and so is signature.

Mike,

MO is when Jack decides to kill children instead of Adults, or he kills blacks instead of white people. But signature is when he cuts out body parts the same way every time, whether it be children or Adults his signature will be the same.

Signature is what he does beyond the kill, something that is not necessary, but it is what he likes so he goes beyond the kill.

Lets say that he decides to urinate on his victims after he is done with them, now you say that the signature changed and it was not him, if he removed the same body parts before he urinated on them, it would still be him, simply because he removed the body parts in the same way again, urinating on them is not a change but something he wants to add to his signature.

If he did not remove and take the body parts, but cut them up and then urinate on them, then I would say it was someone else.

[The Good Michael]

urinating on them is not a change but something he wants to add to his signature.

If he adds something to his signature, it's a change in signature, simple as that. If he has always taken a uterus, but now can snatch a heart because he has time, it is a change in signature. There is no proof that a signature has to stay the same. That is one of the problems with profiling, and why it is inaccurate.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

If he has always taken a uterus, but now can snatch a heart because he has time, it is a change in signature.

If, however, the real signature is the excision of internal organs, then it remains constant from Chapman through Kelly. It might include Nichols also, if we allow Jack to scribble his initials rather than leaving a full signature The issue here is that people are getting fixated on the uterus, whereas a strong argument can be advanced that not even Jack did as much.

[Fisherman]

Mike writes
"If he adds something to his signature, it's a change in signature, simple as that. If he has always taken a uterus, but now can snatch a heart because he has time, it is a change in signature. There is no proof that a signature has to stay the same."

...and I would like to second that. Moreover, there is no evidence telling us that he did not follow the same pattern at each kill. It all lies in how he formulated that pattern in his own mind, and we have no access to that.
If, for example, his aim was to dig his way as far as possible into the bodies of his victims, then he may well have done just that at each occasion, with Kelly being the one victim that gave him the time to go all the way.
Also, there is no telling that he favoured the uterus, or even sexually related organs; he took Eddowes´ kidney, did he not?
Maybe we should compare him to a boy spending his weekly allowance on car models; if the toy shop he favours only has two models, Ford Uterus and Chevrolet Kidney, than that is what he can buy. And as Sam has pointed out at numerous occasions, there are not many models in the "shopping window".
But soon as the shop lets the customer a bit further into the store, and offers a Cadillac Heart, then he has the possibility to add a new car to his collection, and that may well mean that he does not care much about the Uterus and Kidney models.

Me? I drive a Volkswagen Golf, mostly...

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

If, however, the real signature is the excision of internal organs, then it remains constant from Chapman through Kelly.

Right Gareth, and if the signature is just "I want to kill me some whores", then there are many more victims that could be added. This is why 'signature' is not a great and exact science.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Right Gareth, and if the signature is just "I want to kill me some whores", then there are many more victims that could be added. This is why 'signature' is not a great and exact science.

Indeed - it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot, in the wrong hands!