|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 3:44 pm: |       |
It turns out that Chapman was looking for some poisons to use, but could not obtain any. Right around that time the Ripper murders started.
This is very interesting new evidence. If that is what it should be called.
-Peter- |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
Hi, Peter:
On what basis do you make the statement, "It turns out that Chapman was looking for some poisons to use, but could not obtain any. Right around that time the Ripper murders started." As far as I know, the evidence about George Chapman's activity in obtaining and using poisons was in the decade or so following the Ripper murders not at the time of the Ripper crimes. If you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, or are referring to any statement made by an author on the case, please cite it.
Best regards
Chris George |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 33
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 7:33 pm: | |
Chris,
I obtained my information from: "The American Murders of Jack the Ripper" by R. Michael Gordon.
To give you a little background of the citation, Wolff Levisohn, who is mentioned, was an associate of Chapman.
"What Klosowski was hiding from would only be a matter of speculation, however, the favor he asked of Wolff Levisohn is a matter of court record.
Levisohn would later testify that Klosowski asked him to acquire some poisons for his personal use. All Levisohn would say on the stand was, ‘I talked to the accused (Klosowski) about medicines and he asked me for a certain medicine. But I said no, I did not want to get twelve years.'
IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT NOT LONG AFTER KLOSOWSKI ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE POISONS, AND FAILED-THE RIPPER MURDERS BEGAN.” (My caps)
(Gordon believes that Tabram was the first Ripper victim. I think its obvious why-Chapman lived right where she was murdered.)
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on December 01, 2003) |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 8:20 am: | |
Hi, Peter:
First it has been discussed time and again that Chapman lived in George Yard not in 1888 but later and that at the time of the Ripper murders he was most likely living in Cable Street. Second, I don't have Gordon's new book but it sounds to me as if the statement you have quoted is Gordon's words not Wolf Levisohn's. I do have Hargrave Adam's The Trial of George Chapman and I will check tonight to see if there is any indication that Levisohn testified that Chapman was buying poisons at the time of the Ripper murders or even before. I have noted here on a number of occasions that Gordon is very intent on placing the mantle of the Ripper on George Chapman, often at the expense of the truth and in the face of the verifiable evidence.
Best regards
Chris George |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 37
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 5:26 pm: | |
Chris,
Since you have the book, (American Murders) this citation is on pages 93-94. Also, if you look at “A Chronology of Death” in the back of the book, you will find the “poison” subject in year 1888/1890.
Wolf Levisohn did actually go up to the stand and say that Chapman tried to purchase poisons from him.
"I talked to the accused (Klosowski) about medicines and he asked me for a certain medicine. But I said no, I did not want to get twelve years."
Chris, I fully agree with you that Gordon claims’ about Chapman being the Ripper are sometimes absurd. Chapman is not an absurd suspect; it’s just the way Gordon presents him at various points. At points in the book, he states it as fact that Chapman was the Ripper.
In all the four killings in America, he offers little evidence to make me even think that Chapman may have done it. Not even enough evidence to even convince me that Jack did at least one.
But I really don’t think that should stop us from looking at actual facts. The actual fact is that Levisohn did say these things about Chapman.
-Peter-
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 727
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 5:41 am: | |
Peter,
I hate to be a boring sceptic about this suspect as well, but Chapman is probably an even less credible candidate for being the Ripper than Tumblety.
The use of poison is a very bad indicator in this case, since poison and ripping is completely different types of crimes psychologically. As far as I am concerned, along with quite a few criminologists, it doesen't add up.
Killing with the use of poison is a much more sophisticated and cowardly method, and Chapman's victims were also personally close to him. It is highly unlikely that a wife-poisoner would go berserk ripping prostitutes to pieces in a savage manner. Chapman may have been a wife-abuser and a serial killer in his own right, but Jack the Ripper? Hardly!
These types of crimes are too far apart, and even if we really don't know anything about Jack's personality or background, looking at the Ripper crimes I see a totally different kind of individual than George Chapman. The Ripper murders are performed in a more personal, dirty manner and with a lot of frenzy. Compared to the shrewd methods of the coward George Chapman, they speak of a totally different kind of behaviour. Experience tells us that these seldom go together, and since we don't have additional facts or evidence pointing in Chapman's direction -- and can't find a suitable link from Chapman's wives to the prostitutes killed by the Ripper, he is an extremely bad candidate for being the latter.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 49
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 9:07 pm: | |
Glenn,
Chapman is not a bad candidate for the Ripper.
Regarding the constant M.O. arguments about Chapman, John Douglas of the F.B.I. puts it to rest. He says,
Some criminologists and behavioral scientists have written that perpetrators maintain their modus operandi, and that this is what links so-called signature crimes. This conclusion is incorrect. Subjects will change their modus operandi as they gain experience. This is learned behavior.
Also, Glenn, wouldn't it be smart for Chapman to change his style to avoid detection?
More suspicion can be put on Chapman when you'd notice that he moved at least eight times in three years and that he used multiple names.
Also, like I had said in the above posts-his failure to purchase poisions coincides with when the Ripper murders started.
Chapman did show signs of violence towards women.
For instance, Chapman physically abused his wives. In one incident, after an argument with Chapman, Lucy had found a knife sticking out from under a pillow.
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on December 03, 2003) |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 117
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 12:04 am: | |
Peter, you must not have read John Douglas's book The Cases That Haunt Us, since he dismisses Chapman as a suspect out of hand. Of Chapman he writes, "Still, there is no way a man hacks apart five or six women, lies low for ten years with no one noticing anything about him, then resumes his homicidal career as a poisoner, who, along with bombers, is the most cowardly and detached of all murderers," (77). Now, there are plenty of folks here who disagree with Mr. Douglas's analysis of the Ripper murders and dispute the validity of profiling itself, but if you're going to use him as a reference you should at least know all of what he's said and not just bits and pieces.
I think you're confusing M.O. and signature. Yes, the M.O. can be flexible, but the signature is not. It remains more or less constant. Both the Ripper and Chapman killed women. That much is certain. One used a knife and another used poison. That's M.O. However, the signatures are vastly different. Jack "got off," in one manner or another, by mutilating his victims. That's his signature. That's what distinguishes him from, say, a guy who cuts a woman's throat as part of a robbery gone bad. The M.O. is similar, but the signatures are completely different. The robber just needed to neutralize his victim in some way. He could have just as easily taken a baseball bat to her or threatened her or whatever, depending on the type of guy he is and what means are available to him. And he's going to want to get away as quickly and as cleanly as possible. Sticking around to tear the lady's uterus out is not part of the equation.
That's juat not the case with Jack. The mutilations were accomplished at great personal risk, which indicates that they were his primary focus, and the murders themselves were of a means to an end than anything else. He's not a sadist--he dispatched his victims too quickly and quietly, and rather than get away while he had the chance, he instead feels the need to cut them open and see what's inside, which would have delayed his escape. A guy like that couldn't (according to Douglas, at least) just "change his style to avoid detection." That would defeat the entire purpose of the crimes for him.
As a poisoner, Chapman is all wrong. Since there's not a clear financial motive in any of his crimes, it seems to me that he leaned much more toward the sadistic end of the spectrum. If he'd been the Ripper, and for some reason opted to use poison, I would have expected him to get rid of the women quickly and open them up as soon as he had the chance. The fact that he didn't, and the fact that Chapman's victims died slow, agonizing deaths, after which he made no attempt to escape and very little to avoid detection, should be very telling if you're a student of Douglas's. The signature is all wrong. Violence towards women simply isn't enough. Plenty of guys are violent toward women; most don't disembowel them. |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 51
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 12:24 am: | |
Erin,
All of what he's said? The citation I have to the citation you have are direct opposites. I have his stand from this quote.
The quote I wrote is from Sudgen's "The Complete History." (461-softcover-2002)
The person being quoted was John Douglas of the FBI. Perhaps one of ours was published before the other and Douglas changed his opinion.
Anyway, I think we should take note that the Ripper murders and the poisoning murders took place between two different time periods. A human beings thoughts and actions can change significantly.
I am sure that at sixteen years old, Chapman wasn't thinking about poisoning women. If he could make such a drastic change from sixteen years old, why not from 1888 to the time of the poisoning?
-Peter-
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 737
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:24 am: | |
Hi Peter,
I can only second to Erin's brilliant post above, which doesen't really leave that much further for me to elaborate.
But a poisoner is a completely different kind of person than someone who mutilates women. As Erin splendidly points out, a poisoner is someone who have no problem with watching someone close to him die a very slow and painful death. And very often a poisoner have a certain motive for his crimes, like passion (for example jealousy) or -- more commonly -- money.
The Ripper is a completely different type of character. When Douglas spoke about a serial killer changing his MO, he hardly included poisoning alongside knife-murder and mutilation. And we don't see the same process and intentions in the signature either.
Peter, using multiple names were extremely common among people in the poorer districts, and almost everyone with some sort of criminal record or who had a foreign origin did this. So that doesen't have to indicate anything as far as the Ripper is concerned -- that would fit hundreds, maybe thousands of individuals in East End.
And once again, you're making too much out of the "violence against women" thing. If we had to consider that as the main base for our deductions, the number of suspects would inflate to an incredible degree. That point just isn't enough to nail someone to these types of crimes.
Chapman is probably one of the least possible Ripper suspects, in my view, since he and the Ripper used completely different methods and didn't have the same kinds of motivations for their crimes. There were a lot of shady and murderous characters in East End during the late 19th century, and Chapman was most certainly not that unique in that context.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 738
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:25 am: | |
A great post, Erin.
Nice to see you back in the game again.
You've been missed.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 54
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:57 pm: | |
Glenn and Erin,
I think it's odd that you guys fail to bring up the Zodiac killer. May I cite this:? (Philip Sudgen-The Complete History)
In four horrific incidents in 1968-9 Zodiac shot or stabbed seven victims, five of them fatally. The attacks then ceased. But the murderer continued to taunt the police and press with letters until as late as 1978. He even boasted in his macabre correspondence of fresh killings. These later victims may have been figments of a perverted imagination. Yet it is also possible that they were real and that they had not been officially attributed to Zodiac because of differences of locale or technique. Indeed, in a letter of November 1969, Zodiac warned of just such an impending change in his modus operandi: 'I shall no longer announce to anyone when I commit my murders, they shall look like routine robberies, killing of anger, and a few fake accidents, etc. The police shall never catch me, because I have been too clever for them'. Robert Graysmith, who studied the case, took Zodiac at his word and presented evidence to link him with various unsolved murders of hitchhikers in California, Washington and Oregon between 1969 and 1981. The victims were stabbed, poisoned, strangled, drowned or smothered. 'The truly horrifying part to me,' he wrote, 'was that it seemed that someone was experimenting in different way of killing people.'
Yes, Erin, the signature can be flexible. This is a clear example. Zodiac had "smothered" a victim in one instance and poisoned one in the other. If Chapman was both the Ripper and poisoner, then like Zodiac, he was experimenting in different ways and trying to avoid detection-no matter how far apart the time periods were.
Glenn:
Eight times in three years was common? To top that off, a few multiple names?
-Peter- |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 750
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 1:58 pm: | |
Peter,
Both Chapman and the Ripper were quite consistent in their MO and signature -- in their own right. None of them did that much experimentation outside their "own fields". So the Zodiac is a questionable reference here. The Zodiac is nothing like the Ripper or Chapman.
"Eight times in three years was common? To top that off, a few multiple names?"
Oh yes, Peter. That is nothing. We are talking about criminals from poorer districts and immigrants with criminal behaviour. I give can give you a long list of people from such environments, with three or four different names at the same time, and with maybe fifteen aliases over a ten year period. This was a very common approach in order to avoid being registred in police matters during the 19th century. Those who used thsi approach the most, was the prostitutes, but it was widely taken in practice by others. Chapman was an amateur in that respect.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 09, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 85
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:44 am: | |
Glenn,
Both Chapman and the Ripper were quite consistent in their MO and signature -- in their own right. None of them did that much experimentation outside their "own fields". So the Zodiac is a questionable reference here. The Zodiac is nothing like the Ripper or Chapman.
How do you know that they were "quite consistent" in their own right of MO and signature?
Nobody knows who JTR was nobody knows how many people he killed.
The point of my post was to show you that some serial killers are not "quite consistent" in their MO and signature. The Zodiac killer is the perfect example.
One of the couple things he did was poison and strangles his victims.
Now some people say that Chapman could not have done the same? How is that logical?
The Zodiac killer is an example to show people that yes, serial killers can change their MO and signature.
We are talking about criminals from poorer districts and immigrants with criminal behaviour.
You mention that it was for criminal reasons. So, why would Chapman ever have those aliases I mentioned? It had to be for something.
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 253
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 1:29 am: | |
Peter
1. In none of the killings attributed to the Zodiac did he ever smother or poison his victim.
Cheri Jo Bates - stabbed and throat cut
David Faraday - shot
Betty Lou Jensen - shot
Darlene Ferrin - shot
Mike Mageau - shot (survived)
Cecilia Ann Shepard - stabbed
Bryan Hartnall - stabbed (survived)
Paul Lee Stine - shot
2. I don't believe that the Zodiac did change his signature. His signature was to show the world how clever he was and how he had power over humanity. He did this through the letters he wrote, the messages he left at crime scenes, the telephone calls to the police after the murders each of which was traced back to phone boxes right outside the police station, the cyphers he left to be decoded etc. The signature did not necessarily have to be a part of the killing itself. |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 118
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 1:37 am: | |
Peter, you've obviously missed the points I was trying to make, as you're still confusing signature with M.O. Signature does not, and indeed, cannot change. No, this is not the world according to Erin; this is basic profiling. Read Bob Keppel's book Signature Killers for a thorough investigation of the matter of signature and I think you'll get a clearer picture of what it is and what it isn't, and why it can't change.
Speaking of sources, have you actually read any of John Douglas's many works? I think you'll see that his views have remained fairly consistent over time. With all due respect, I really don't feel you're in a position to argue Douglas's views when you don't really know what they are. As such, I don't feel this line of inquiry merits further consideration beyond what I've already said. I apologize if that sounds abrupt, but I just don't think it's wise to take a person's statements out of context and then base your arguments from those statements. It's pretty easy to get led astray that way.
Your reference to the Zodiac is also way off the mark. First of all, what you quoted is merely Robert Graysmith's opinion, not definitely ascertained fact. Zodiac's official tally is five. I would argue for the inclusion of Cheri Jo Bates, but there's no conclusive evidence pointing to any victims after Paul Stine. Furthermore, you should know that Mr. Graysmith does not enjoy the most stellar reputation among Zodiac researchers because of his tendency to equate fact with fiction. To put it bluntly, he exaggerated, misinterpreted, and simply made up a great deal of the information contained in his book. Zodiac is a decent overview of the case, but serious students of the unknown California serial killer look to Michael Kelleher's excellent This is the Zodiac Speaking and its equally impressive follow-up, Suspect Zero, as the best references on the murders. You don't have to take my word for it; check out www.zodiackiller.com, a site featured on A&E's Cold Case Files.
One last point about Zodiac: Since you're a fan of Douglas you might also be interested to know that in the same book where Douglas discusses the Ripper case, he also includes a chapter on Zodiac, who appears as a completely different sort of killer than the Ripper. Zodiac was deliberate, methodical, and egomaniacal, an organized killer who courted and avidly followed his own press--in direct contrast to the disoraganized, haphazard, publicity-avoiding Jack. Furthermore, given Zodiac's profile, you'd do well to exercise due caution with regard to any statements he made that cannot be coroborated by the evidence. So in this instance, I defer to the Bay Area police, who seem a good deal more reliable than a serial killer. To put it plainly, just because Zodiac said he did something doesn't mean he did. He also said he was going to hijack a school bus. Did he? No. The Unabomber said he was going to blow up a jetliner over a holiday weekend. Did he? No. The object is to put the fear of God into a community, and both the Zodiac and the Unabomber accomplished this admirably.
By the way, my great-grandmother, for no apparent reason, started going by another name at some point in her life. Does that make her a criminal? No. People (especially poor ones, like my great-grandma) often didn't even have birth certificates back then. Their name was whatever someone told them it was, and if they decided to change it later, that was their business.
By the way, thanks for the compliments, Glenn. You give me too much credit.  |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 123
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 4:48 am: | |
I wanted to add something to my previous message that I forgot to mention: Kelleher's second book, Suspect Zero, is fictional, but it still contains enough solid information about the Zodiac to be useful. This is the Zodiac Speaking is non-fiction.
Sorry, just had to make that clarification in case anyone got the wrong impression. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 756
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 7:12 am: | |
Peter,
"How do you know that they were "quite consistent" in their own right of MO and signature?
Nobody knows who JTR was nobody knows how many people he killed."
Naturally. But we can only discuss the matter from what we know, from from speculating about crimes that could have happened, just to make it fit our arguments.
Furthermore, I don't really know that much about Chapman's signature -- but the poisoning is his MO, like the smothering and throat-cutting is the MO in the Ripper's case. The mutilation is the Ripper's signature, though, or at least a part of it. And as far as we know of, these two individuals were consistent separately in their methods to kill. To take supposed additional murders (that we don't know actually ever existed) in consideration is redundant. WE can only reason from the things we know about.
As far as the Zodiac is concerned, I think Erin and Alan have given you valid enough explanations.
{Me:} "We are talking about criminals from poorer districts and immigrants with criminal behaviour.
{Peter:} You mention that it was for criminal reasons. So, why would Chapman ever have those aliases I mentioned? It had to be for something."
I also said that it was common among immigrants, although a greater number of aliases would indicate some sort of shady behaviour, of course. And Chapman was BOTH an immigrant and a criminal. I am surprised he didn't have even more multiple names, especially as he married a number of times and killed his wives. Otherwise I am not sure that I understand you comment, but please elaborate.
-----------------
Oh no, Erin. I can't give you credit enough.
However, just to clarify: hope you didn't think that I implied that people like your grand-mother were criminals just because they changed their name. I was pointing out that it also was common among immigrants and that I was talking about people with multiple aliases, which is a different matter. 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 495
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:23 am: | |
Erin,
Disagree. I feel Zodiac was mixed....leans more towards organised granted but not in the pure sense of the definition.
His murders where comitted in the open, in public.
The bodies were left for all to see. There is no covering or burial.
Evidence was left at the scene.
Small pointers true, but trying to box a killer in one or the other when they can straddle both really pings my ass.
That said, I agree with the rest of what you say (publicity seeker).
A different animal yes. But the links with Jack (letters (granted, may not have been Jacks work but did the Zodiac think this) and a Graffito of sorts at Berryessa) make me wonder if old Zodiac studied Jack The Ripper.
Just something to think on.
Monty
|
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 124
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:37 pm: | |
Wouldn't want to ping anyone's ass, Monty, although I do feel Zodiac leans rather heavily toward the organized end of the spectrum. I try to avoid strict categorization, but his murders seem quite well-planned and carried out, as does the tenor of his letters to the police and press.
I do feel strongly that Zodiac modeled himself, at least in part, on the Ripper. His taunting letters are so reminiscient of the "Dear Boss" missive it seems highly unlikely that even if Jack didn't write it, the Zodiac thought he did. Publicity-hound that Zodiac was, it was probably no coincidence that he would want to equate himself with, and perhaps even eclipse, the most famous serial killer of all time. He got his wish, at least on one American TV show; when TLC's "Top Ten" show profiled the most notorious unsolved murder cases, Jack came in around number seven, while Zodiac took the top spot. Wherever he is, I'm sure he's pleased.
I didn't get the impression you were insulting my great-grandmother, Glenn. Just trying to reinforce your point about people changing their names for all sorts of reasons, not all of them criminal. |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 87
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:26 am: | |
Erin, Glenn
Erin, you stated:
Signature does not, and indeed, cannot change. No, this is not the world according to Erin; this is basic profiling.
How can you possibly state this as a fact? Profiling is not based on fact, end of story. I think profiling has its limits. What about the people who do not believe in profiling? Are they wrong?
I'm going to use my commonsense here and state it simply:
I really don't see much of a difference between M.O. and signature after what you and Glenn had stated. With Chapman, is it legit that he could have not been the Ripper?
After reading your guys’ comments, this is what I'm getting out of them:
Since Chapman poisoned three women, there is no way he could have been the Ripper. Our evidence is based on profiling.
Please, if this is not what you guys are saying, clarify it for me then.
Speaking of sources, have you actually read any of John Douglas's many works?
No I have not. Have you looked at every single murder, rape, burglary, etc... out their? No, you have not, no one has. So how can you then go on saying that a signature of a killer cannot change?
I was simply taking the quote out of Sudgens book. I never knew Douglas had two completely contradictory opinions about M.O.
Glenn, you stated:
And as far as we know of, these two individuals were consistent separately in their methods to kill.
How does that have relevance?
There are more simple explanations for the change of M.O. or signature.
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 88
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:29 am: | |
Alan,
In none of the killings attributed to the Zodiac did he ever smother or poison his victim.
Cheri Jo Bates - stabbed and throat cut
David Faraday - shot
Betty Lou Jensen - shot
Darlene Ferrin - shot
Mike Mageau - shot (survived)
Cecilia Ann Shepard - stabbed
Bryan Hartnall - stabbed (survived)
Paul Lee Stine - shot
Doesn't stabbing and throat cutting sound a bit like "smothering"? |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 501
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 7:09 am: | |
Erin,
Please dont get me wrong. I agree with you.
Zodiac does, in my opinion, lean towards organised though he holds some disorganised traits. But he cannot be put in an organised box completely.
Ive always had a theory that he had done some reading up on Jack.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 767
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 9:27 am: | |
Peter,
"I really don't see much of a difference between M.O. and signature after what you and Glenn had stated."
There is a very important difference between modus operandi and signature, and many fail to see this (like I did in the beginning):
Modus operandi: they method the killer uses to kill his victim, like strangulation, knife-stabbing, gunshot, throat-cutting, poisoning etc.
Signature: the acts performed by the killer that is unnecessary for the killing itself, and which mostly contain the pure satisfaction (like a sexual one) or to degrade the dead victim in some way. Examples of this are mutilations, special display of the body, messages on the crimes scenes, rape on the dead body etc.
I am not that much of an expert on Chapman, but I can't see that much indication on a signature in his case. He poisoned his women for other reasons than just sheer pleasure or instinct. The Ripper, on the other hand, has a very clear signature: the mutilations and possibly his display of the victim (which I don't think necessarily shall be interpreted as a message in his case). His MO was the throat-cutting or possibly the strangulation/smothering when that occurred.
My statement:
"And as far as we know of, these two individuals were consistent separately in their methods to kill."
Peter's:
"How does that have relevance?"
It has absolute relevance, since there are no connection whatsoever in their individual methods to kill their victims that links them both to one another. And not the same motivation for the crimes. I say it again, poisoning and throat-cutting (and with the extension of mutilation as a signature) are totally different crimes psychologically -- profiling or not.
And yes, profiling has indeed its limits, but I think even those who works in the police force would accept this discrepancy in the crimes. Everything I say is not based on profiling, Peter. Just simple common sense.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 267
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 10:01 am: | |
Peter
MO is learned behaviour. It's what the perpetrator does to commit the crime. It's dynamic - that is, it can change. Signature is what the perpetrator has to do to fulfil himself. It is static; it does not change
Ref: Mindhunter: Inside the FBI Elite Serial Crime Unit by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker
In other words, MO is how they kill, Signature is why they kill.} |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
