the last one

[Karl]

Meaningless be ause of his signature.

I don't follow. Are you talking his signature as in his MO, or his actual signature? Because if the former, then that is precisely the point: MJK did not follow the MO with respects to how he chose the victims, which followed a pattern with the first four. Of course it is significant. If you are referring to a handwritten signature, then that is a non-sequitur.

The height is of particular importance, as by all accounts Jack the Ripper would be shorter than 5'7 (quite tall for a lady back then; taller even than the male average I believe), and thereby for the first time attacking a victim taller than himself. This is very significant.

[Robert St Devil]

I don't follow. Are you talking his signature as in his MO, or his actual signature? Because if the former, then that is precisely the point: MJK did not follow the MO with respects to how he chose the victims, which followed a pattern with the first four. Of course it is significant. If you are referring to a handwritten signature, then that is a non-sequitur.

Hello Karl.
The source that I am reading differentiates between MO and Signature. That is not an affront on your intelligence. I can probably believe that was your overall reference.

I am completely naive to Pierre's logic and i have never spoken to this person on the matter even once.

If the killer is a picquerist, then the victim is disposable. We know that they are disposable because he poses them.

That line of reasoning, however, IS an affront on ripperology.

[Karl]

Hello Karl.
The source that I am reading differentiates between MO and Signature. That is not an affront on your intelligence. I can probably believe that was your overall reference.

I am completely naive to Pierre's logic and i have never spoken to this person on the matter even once.

If the killer is a picquerist, then the victim is disposable. We know that they are disposable because he poses them.

That line of reasoning, however, IS an affront on ripperology.

I am sorry, but that answers neither question. The first question was why the victim profiles were irrelevant - and as far as I can tell, victim profiles are always relevant, whether the killer is a picquerist or not. The second question was how you used the word "signature", because there are several possible way that word may be used - and I do not know what sources you follow. And in any case I would like an elaboration how signature - however it is defined - renders victim profiling irrelevant. Victim profiles are, after all, part of the MO.

[Pierre]

Meaningless, why?

He didn´t choose the victims by using these parameters, except for one aspect of the crime scene in Miller´s Court.

Their age and height had no meaning to him.

High risk was a parameter that had a meaning to the Whitechapel killer.

(I only speak from the point of view of my own research and nothing else).

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

I don't follow. Are you talking his signature as in his MO, or his actual signature? Because if the former, then that is precisely the point: MJK did not follow the MO with respects to how he chose the victims, which followed a pattern with the first four. Of course it is significant. If you are referring to a handwritten signature, then that is a non-sequitur.

The height is of particular importance, as by all accounts Jack the Ripper would be shorter than 5'7 (quite tall for a lady back then; taller even than the male average I believe), and thereby for the first time attacking a victim taller than himself. This is very significant.

Hi,

thanks for this very interesting discussion.

Actually I have not been explicitly analyzing his MO - it has been secondary to me since I have other data. But doing so I can actually say that the murder of Kelly does follow his MO very well.

I´m sorry I can´t explain why, but if you hypothesize another possible dimension of his MO, which is not only to "attack on the streets" but something completely different, you will understand that Kelly followed the MO of the Whitechapel killer.

This aspect of the MO is very clear especially in the case of Annie Chapman, the so called double event and the three dismemberment murders from 87 to 89. And it is this special dimension of his MO which makes the history of the Whitechapel killer intelligible.

Regards Pierre

[Varqm]

On Kelly's age,etc compared to others.:

Did the ripper killed indoors because of increased police/vigilantes activity and
if so would the indoor victim's age matter? To me it looks like she could have been as old as
Eddowes,etc.
If Mary Kelly's circumstance - broken window,Barnett leaving,etc.- happened after
Chapman's murder would he have done the Kelly murder after Chapman's murder ?
With the same amount of savagery?

[Robert St Devil]

I am sorry, but that answers neither question. The first question was why the victim profiles were irrelevant... The second question was how you used the word "signature", because there are several possible way that word may be used - and I do not know what sources you follow.

Hello Karl.
To answer your second question first
I am the least qualified to answer this question
However i will explain it the best i understand without citing

MO is everything involved to commit the crime Signature is what happens beyond or after the crime has been committed. In this case, a part of the MO would be murder by incapacitation and cutting her throat, roughly speaking. Everything that happens after that event would be the signature. Examples: slashing her face, cutting her open, taking her organs, posing her body. When he cuts her carotid artery, she is dead, and the crime has been committed. Signature is the overkill.

To answer your first question next
What was BUNDYs MO? Young and pretty, I think.

{Age is a generalization. I have to use broad categoRies based on decades, and even then, im only ever guessing because there are women like Polly Nichols who, by her own father, look ten years younger than her age.}

Meaningless because... If he is a picquerist, then the girl only serves a mean to gratifying his ends. He may have a category - like dark or girls without bonnets - but still he would be purchasing the services of a prostitute to fulfill his sexual fantasy. I cant say that i know much on the dementia within the fantasy but the aspect of two knives raises a curious question.

[Shaggyrand]

Robert is correct on what's MO and what's signature in this case. Though there's some confusion with victimology being a part of MO. They are three different, often connected, concepts.

Victimology is not part of MO. It's characteristics of the victims. It is fluid. While a serial offender might prefer a certain age or hair color or whatever. Not all victims necessarily conform to a single victimology. Victimology- prostitutes/victims of oppurtunity
Modus operandi is the actions taken by a perpetrator in order commit the crime. MO is fluid, it is often learned behavior that evolves over the perpetrator's career based on experience of what works. MO- incapacitation, sliced throat
Signature fulfills an emotional or psychological need for the perpetrator. It is beyond the crime itself. It does not change but is not always present for various reasons. If the signature isn't present the offender doesn't get his kcok out of the act. Signature- mutilation, posing victim

Many put the most stock in the importance of signature because it does not change unlike the other two.

[Karl]

Thank you all, gentlemen, but I am still no closer to understanding how signature - however you wish to define it - renders victim profiles irrelevant. Irrelevant to signature, maybe, but not to the initial act of picking targets. You said yourself, Robert, that he may have had certain categories of girls - well exactly. You also seem to base your argument on the assumption that he was a picquerist, which is yet to be established - and which I do not see the relevance of in any case. The fact that all women were prostitutes suggests that he went after prostitutes; the fact that all were women is certainly not random; height would almost certainly be a significant factor, as he must feel comfident he can subdue them (and a woman fighting for her life is stronger than most people think); looks would also in all likelihood play a part. I have still not seen any argument why any of these should be irrelevant.

And Pierre, you cannot ask me to accept your arguments based on evidence you do not wish to disclose. What that essentially means is that you cannot contribute to a discussion, because you are not bringing any arguments to the table.

[Pierre]

Thank you all, gentlemen, but I am still no closer to understanding how signature - however you wish to define it - renders victim profiles irrelevant. Irrelevant to signature, maybe, but not to the initial act of picking targets. You said yourself, Robert, that he may have had certain categories of girls - well exactly. You also seem to base your argument on the assumption that he was a picquerist, which is yet to be established - and which I do not see the relevance of in any case. The fact that all women were prostitutes suggests that he went after prostitutes; the fact that all were women is certainly not random; height would almost certainly be a significant factor, as he must feel comfident he can subdue them (and a woman fighting for her life is stronger than most people think); looks would also in all likelihood play a part. I have still not seen any argument why any of these should be irrelevant.

And Pierre, you cannot ask me to accept your arguments based on evidence you do not wish to disclose. What that essentially means is that you cannot contribute to a discussion, because you are not bringing any arguments to the table.

Hi Karl,

Why should he worry about being able to "subdue them"? They were rather heavy users of alcohol and physically in bad shape.

Regards Pierre

[Karl]

Hi Karl,

Why should he worry about being able to "subdue them"? They were rather heavy users of alcohol and physically in bad shape.

Regards Pierre

Which might well be a reason why he picked them, wouldn't you agree?

[Pierre]

Which might well be a reason why he picked them, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I think that is the safest hypothesis as far as the victimology is concearned. And not height or age.

Regards Pierre

[Karl]

Yes, I think that is the safest hypothesis as far as the victimology is concearned. And not height or age.

Regards Pierre

Age, not so much for the safety aspect. Height, absolutely. It is natural and instinctive to associate height with physical prowess, and it is generally experience and confidence - in fighting, mind you - which is required to place oneself above the aversion to tackle a taller adversary. Yes, there are plenty of short bouncers - and you can rest assured that all of them will be scrappers. Someone who seeks to kill does not seek a fair fight, but will seek victims they deem sufficiently vulnerable. Severely drunk is a good start (but not all the victims were), but even so he will definitely notice the difference between women who are respectively shorter and taller than himself. And going by some witness accounts, at least, the killer was only slightly taller than his other victims, which all ranged from 5'-5'2.

[Pierre]

Age, not so much for the safety aspect. Height, absolutely. It is natural and instinctive to associate height with physical prowess, and it is generally experience and confidence - in fighting, mind you - which is required to place oneself above the aversion to tackle a taller adversary. Yes, there are plenty of short bouncers - and you can rest assured that all of them will be scrappers. Someone who seeks to kill does not seek a fair fight, but will seek victims they deem sufficiently vulnerable. Severely drunk is a good start (but not all the victims were), but even so he will definitely notice the difference between women who are respectively shorter and taller than himself. And going by some witness accounts, at least, the killer was only slightly taller than his other victims, which all ranged from 5'-5'2.

Well, if you say so - and how do you think the height of the victims could help us to find the killer?

Regards Pierre

[elmore 77]

Age, not so much for the safety aspect. Height, absolutely. It is natural and instinctive to associate height with physical prowess, and it is generally experience and confidence - in fighting, mind you - which is required to place oneself above the aversion to tackle a taller adversary. Yes, there are plenty of short bouncers - and you can rest assured that all of them will be scrappers. Someone who seeks to kill does not seek a fair fight, but will seek victims they deem sufficiently vulnerable. Severely drunk is a good start (but not all the victims were), but even so he will definitely notice the difference between women who are respectively shorter and taller than himself. And going by some witness accounts, at least, the killer was only slightly taller than his other victims, which all ranged from 5'-5'2.

Chances are she approached an experienced,confident killer and took him to a secluded spot.Whether by chance or design it was indoors is a moot point.He had options,he could have bailed if he lost his bottle at any time and I think it was probably more a case of Ms Right Now rather than Ms Right.He knew his own capabilities,I don't see a slightly taller victim being a problem
,he had stealth and surprise in his armoury,I doubt any great struggle took place.