I have posted before (long ago) on the similarity of the autopsies of Jessica Butts and JonBenet. They both had been strangled (Jessica with a phone cord wrapped multiple times around the neck, JonBenet with the garrot). They both had been hit on the head, (Jessica with a phone, and JonBenet with something like a police knightstick). They both had been assaulted sexually with an object, (knife?, paintbrush?). The similarities suggested to me that the killer might have been involved in both murders.

It dawned on me this morning (at dawn) that the pubic hair was intentionally left on Jessica's toe, while a pubic hair was similarly left at the scene of JonBenet's crime.

You might say pubic hairs are very common at sex-motivated murder scenes. But why is that? The killer is sexually active, you might think. But the sexual activity in these cases is with some inanimate object. So what does that mean? I suppose you could say that when someone kills someone a pubic hair always falls. Well, in my opinion, it could be a "signature".

Hi there, Mikie. I have not followed the Butts case at all. When did the crime take place and at what location?

First the Butts case has a very limited circle of suspects and none of them seem to have ever had any connection to the Ramseys.

Second, hairs of various types are often found at crime scenes. Indeed it is the most commonly found item at a crime scene.

With nothing unique about the placement of the hair at the JonBenet murder, I would not term it a 'signature item'. We don't even know if the pubic hair is related to the crime. And with a paintbrush handle having been used, it seems unlikely he even attempted to perform any acts that would be likely to have left pubic hairs at the scene.

Imho, the pubic hairs with Jessica Butts can certainly be considered a signature.

Evening2 - the Butts case is one of jameson's forums. Please take a look at it.

I don't think it is a signature when a pubic hair is left behind - - I don't think the killer plans that or wants it.

To me, a signature might be ..... well, remember John Brewer Eustace? He was questioned in the Ramsey case and when asked to donate a pubic hair he laughed - - he hadnone. HE was a pedophile who wantedto make sure he left as little evidence behind as possible so he routinely shaved every bit of his body. To me that is a signatiure.

IMO, neither one of those seems like a possible signature. A pubic hair, whether left or not left at the scene, is just too common of an "item" to be signature. My understanding of signature is something that is NOT required to commit the offense but rather something that is required by the offender to fulfill his fantasy. Neither Mikie's nor Jameson's suggestion seem to fit that description.

So, what could the signature be,,,if there is one? Not the note. Not the garotte. Not the red mark on hand. So my guess is that whatever the signature is, we are missing it. What might it be?

Eve2; http://butts_info.tripod.com/buttsfamily/

Clem, Jams: I think that in the Butts case, the gob of sewer grease with the pubic hair which had a lice egg on it was put on her toe as a sort of signature. I am thinking that it was not put by the prime suspect, but by the killer who killed them for Haley. Haley confirmed his presence at the scene with his palm print on the tub, but (in my opinion) was not the killer. But in the Ramsey case, the hair was sort of incendental, not so obvious. I didn't mean, Jameson, that the killer left his own pubic hair at the scene, but rather, left the pubic hair of someone else at the scene, as a means to cover his own tracks. Maybe the pubic hair in the Ramsey case was placed to incriminate the person who requested the murder, in the same way the hair was placed in the Butts case to implicate the requestor.

I was trying to remember where the hair was, and to the best of my memory, it was on a blanket that was inside the suitcase. Is that correct? Smit theorized that JonBenet was also in the suitcase, because fibers were found on her body from the items in the suitcase. So it wasn't quite so intentionally placed, and my theory is weak, I will admit.

The only real signature elements in the Ramsey case would be: an unnecessary and illogical note unrelated to the actual crime.
Other elements such as the garotte and cord could well be unique and perhaps will later be linked to other crimes but they are not 'signatures' since they are not gratuitous.

OK - please define "signature" for me as it relates to homicides.

In the Butts case, three pubic hairs were found, one having a crab egg. One hair was on her toe, two with the comforter. I don't think it is known which hair, the one on her or one of the two with her, had the crab egg on it.

Until I know what a homicide signature is, I'm saying three pubic hairs are pretty good signatures! :-)

The idea of a "signature" by a killer comes, I believe, from Jouhn Douglas.

http://www.pentaone.com/hannibal/douglasarticle10.shtml

Linking Cases Together
Following a Killer's Signature
by John Douglas

Like everyone else, a killer learns from experience. If you don't catch him right away, he'll begin to develop his modus operandi, or MO, and probably get better at the crime.

Maybe he'll find a more efficient way to kill someone or a quicker way to abduct a woman from a car. He'll start showing more control over the crime.

The MO is basically the way the predator commits the crime -- if he uses a gun rather than a knife or lures prospective victims by putting his arm in a fake sling.

While the MO tells us something about how he did it, the signature gives us some insight into why.

Unique to the person

The signature is a ritual, something the subject does intentionally for emotional satisfaction -- something that isn't necessary to perpetuate the crime. Evidence of torture is a signature. Posing -- displaying the victims in a certain way -- is a signature. Signature is a way of linking cases.

Like a real signature, it's a personal detail that's unique to the individual.

Sometimes there's a fine line between an MO and a signature.

I've found that signature is a more reliable guide to the behavior of serial offenders than an MO. That's because the MO evolves, while the emotional reasoning that triggers the signature doesn't. The method a killer uses to get women into his van may change, but the fact that he always tortures them once they're inside stays the same.

One subject covered the faces of his victims. That was his signature. So you look for that in other cases in order to tie them together. A bomber used to spray black paint over the components inside his bombs. It wasn't necessary -- it didn't make the bombs any better. I don't know what it meant, but he did it anyway. He felt the need to do it.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-04 AT 10:01 AM (EST)
 
Don:
You said
"First the Butts case has a very limited circle of suspects and none of them seem to have ever had any connection to the Ramseys."

Response:
This is a way of reasoning which is totally factual and correct; BUT the problem is that if a killer is unknown, then he/she does not have to be within a known circle. It would be wrong to say that every killer is within a limited circle of suspects. Sometimes the killer is from another area, brought in for the sole purpose of killing. He comes, he goes, nobody knows him, nobody suspects him, he is out of the limited circle of suspects. As for having connection with the Ramseys, the limited circle may have no connection to Ramseys, and that is very possible and factual and correct. But if the killer is from outside the limited circle, then that is irrelevant. The question is, is the killer connected to the Ramseys. And then again, it could be that he was not. He could be SOMEONE KNOWN BY SOMEONE KNOWN BY the Ramseys, just as he could be someone known by someone known by the Butts.

"With nothing unique about the placement of the hair at the JonBenet murder, I would not term it a 'signature item'. We don't even know if the pubic hair is related to the crime. And with a paintbrush handle having been used, it seems unlikely he even attempted to perform any acts that would be likely to have left pubic hairs at the scene."

A "signature" item (as I understand it) is something done by the killer that is common from one crime to another which can be used to link the crimes. So things which are common from one crime to another could be considered possible signature items. The fact that he used an object in the sexual assault is indeed a signature, if it was common to both crimes, regardless of what the object was. The leaving of the pubic hairs in the Butts case was obviously intentional. But in the Ramsey case it was either unintentional or possibly intentionally indiscreet. If the purpose was to deflect investigators away from himself, and if he learned from earlier crimes, (as Douglas writes), then he would realize that if the placement is too obvious then it would be less credible.

So you are right, Don, maybe the pubic hair was not related to the crime. I even remember one article saying erroneously that it was Melinda's hair. But it might be considered as a "signature" if it remains unidentified.

Similarly for the immotile sperm in the Chase case. Remember, a killer learns from his crimes, according to Douglas. Deflection of interest by placing someone elses DNA at the scene, crime after crime, would be a signature, whether by pubic hair or DNA.

edit: Also look at the idea of "signature" at the Lorraine Lawrence and Chase murders. The face, in both cases, was bashed beyond recognition and the body was dragged along the street, leaving a trail of blood. It is as if the killer does this intentionally, and yet it serves little purpose other than to put the body in a place that he wants it to be. Yet it gives a link to the two crimes, a common ground.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-04 AT 10:06 AM (EST)
 
It was unclear whether the hair was found on a blanket which partially covered 6-year-old JonBenet's body in the basement room where her father found her Dec. 26 or on bedding in her bedroom.
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0829jon.htm

Other evidence pointing toward some outside intruder includes an unidentified pubic hair found on the blanket wrapping JonBeneÚt's body;
http://63.147.65.175/news/jon101799a.htm

And from Carnes in her ruling last year:
“Finally, a Caucasian ‘pubic or auxiliary’ hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet’s body,” the judge wrote. “The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced.”
http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=25

In a strict sense a pubic hair would be considered trace evidence found at the scene and not some sort of signature much less part of the modus operandi.

The use of pliers of a certain type which are left at the scene would be MO for the pliers and possibly MO rather than signature if they are left at the scene. Certainly if a pink ribbon is tied around the pliers that pink ribbon becomes a 'signature' since it is a totally needless act as far as the murder goes.

A pubic hair would be 'signature' if it were intentionally and prominently placed at the scene of the crime.

I don't see other similar crimes in the intervening seven years. No other useless and lengthy notes.

No common MO either: no home invasion with use of cord and implement from home to molest.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-04 AT 11:12 AM (EST)
 
Signature simplified, I hope.

Example: The Boston Strangler's signature was tying bows on his victims. It wasn't necessary for the commission of the crime but he had to do it to satisfy his fantasy.

Now, let's say the cops have 25 cases of murder in their jurisdiction. All the victims have been found tied up with duct tape around their mouths. Of those 25 murders, 10 of the victims have been found with their feet painted red, 5 have been found in their bedrooms and the remaining 10 have been found in various places around the county and in various positions but all of the last 10 were also found with semen and pubic hairs on their bodies.

Of the 25 cases, there would most likely be a signature linkage between those found with painted feet. Yes, if DNA testing links the pubic hairs and semen to one individual, their is a link but not a signature link. If, however, the semen is found in their left ear, a unique depository, then you could say the semen in the left ear is signature.

Since many victims are found murdered in their bedrooms, you cannot say this is a unique feature of a crime. However, if the victims are found in their bedrooms, in bed, with the covers pulled up to their chins and a glass of wine is on their nightstand and a red rose placed on their chests, then you would have a signature aspect.

Does this clarify signature for those who are still confused?

Rainsong

I'm perfectly clear on signature vs. MO but I don't agree, Don, that simply leaving pubic hairs at crime scenes would be signature, unless leaving those hairs fulfilled some fantasy for the perp. If they were left to stage, mock, etc., they would not be signature.

Left to stage or mock could certainly be a type of signature.

Zodiak sent law enforcement and local newspapers messages in code. They were to mock and taunt and were also an aspect of his signature.

Pubic hairs at the scene of a sexual assault are common--not unique.

Now, if the pubic hairs were left in clumps in the palm of the victims hand--and that would be every victim--they could be seen as 'signature.'

One pubic hair found on a blanket and one found on the toe of another victim do not constitute signature since both most likely 'happened' during the course of the assaults.

Rainsong

I give up on this signature stuff and pubic hairs.

My view is that is probably not related to the crime at all.

His rather wimpy molestation and use of a paintbrush means he probably never undid his pants in order to have a pubic hair be left at the scene. Ofcourse it is possible it was already on an outer garment that he wore.

I think anyone who seems to have enjoyed the murder so much and the sex so little is not going to leave a pubic hair at the scene, indeed he may only be barely capable of it.

Nothing about the pubic hair gives more information than that in his dna from the fingernails and panties.

This is a case where a pubic hair and a blood sample were used to "solve" a case.

It leaves doubt in my mind about the guilt of the suspect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2750965.stm

In April 2002 the Wisconsin Innocence Project of the University of Wisconsin Law School obtained a court order, over the state’s objection, under Wisconsin’s postconviction DNA testing statute for new testing under newer, more powerful DNA technology. The Wisconsin Crime Laboratory succeeded in developing a PCR/STR profile from a pubic hair retrieved immediately after the assault from the victim’s pubic hair combings. On September 10, 2003, the lab results were released, proving that Avery and his witnesses were telling the truth, that he was not at that beach on July 29, 1985, that he had nothing to do with the crime, and that the eyewitness was simply mistaken, as eyewitnesses often are. The DNA test conclusively excluded Avery as the source of the pubic hair, and also identified the true perpetrator of this crime, a man named Gregory Allen, who is currently serving a 60-year sentence in prison for sexual assaults committed after this one. Allen was matched to the DNA profile in this case through a search of the state and national DNA databases.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/avery.htm

They can extract DNA from pubic hairs. Why not in the Ramsey case????

Considering what a "signature" is, I don't suppose the pubic hairs in the Butts case are a signature. But they sure as heck have someone's name on them.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-04 AT 05:08 PM (EST)
 
Douglas says: "Unfortunately, you often need more than one case to determine what the signature is. You don't know if there's a pattern by looking at a single case."

Perhaps "pattern" is just as good a word as "signature", although pattern gives no suggestion that it is linked to one suspect.

Like Rainsong suggests, 25 people can be found in an area with duct tape on their mouths and Rainsong doesn't think it is a signature; (maybe the definition of signature is not clear enough for any two people to agree about it completely); but it is obviously a "pattern". One can only think of it as a signature if one knows for certain that the duct tape was applied edit (by only) one person.

So the pubic hair is, in my opinion, a "signature", and that is strictly my own opinion and not Rainsong's nor Don Bradley's. I don't think anyone can say it is or is not a signature unless they know for certain how it got there. But on the other hand they can say whatever they want whether it makes sense or not.

Mikie, I do agree that a pubic hair that seems to have been left at a crime scene deliberately, might be a signature. If the perp is sexually dysfunctional (and uses an object rather than the real thing) I could see where placing a pubic hair on the victim might assist in stimulating the perp.

I remember Det. Arndt having noticed what she believed to be semen on JonBenet's leg, but later, during the autopsy, I believe, it was stated no semen was found. What ever happened to the substance Det. Arndt saw and what was it identified to have been, if not semen?

LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-04 AT 05:54 PM (EST)
 
Of course nobody knows for sure, even Linda Arndt. But in my opinion it was all part of an organized coverup to protect the real killer(s).

Evidently you still don't understand.

Duct tape is used quite frequently in homicides. So are ligatures. Unless there is something special, some way they are used which is not necessary for the commission of the crime, or they are made from special materials (rope braided from goat hair, tape printed with a caduceus) they are not 'signature.'
One major criteria you are overlooking is the uniqueness of 'signature.' No two criminals are going to have the same signature.

Pattern, used in the context John uses it does not equate to signature.
MO can be pattern. Choice of victim can be pattern. Area where crimes are committed can be pattern. But when a cop takes a look at two disparate crime scenes and recognizes the victims have been killed in different manners but both have been found with the same "irregularity (such as I listed previously)," then you can say they are signature crimes.

Look at Jack the Ripper. His signature was not that he killed prostitutes, but that he ripped them to shreds.

>So the pubic hair is, in my opinion, a "signature", and that
>is strictly my own opinion and not Rainsong's nor Don
>Bradley's. I don't think anyone can say it is or is not a
>signature unless they know for certain how it got there.
>But on the other hand they can say whatever they want
>whether it makes sense or not.

Sorry, but I can say with a degree of certainty that pubic hair is not a signature since they are found far too often at scenes of sexual assaults. If, however, a clump of pubic hairs are found at several crime scenes and all the clumps are placed in the victims hands or over their navels (for example), then you would have 'signature.'

Mikie, the two things to remember about signature are these; unique to the series of crimes (thus to the criminal), and not necessary for the commission of the crime.

Rainsong

Mikie, the two things to remember about signature are these; unique to the series of crimes (thus to the criminal), and not necessary for the commission of the crime.

Rainsong

I would like to add that the gratification of the offender must be a motivation.

>Mikie, the two things to remember about signature are these;
>unique to the series of crimes (thus to the criminal), and
>not necessary for the commission of the crime.
>
>Rainsong
>
>I would like to add that the gratification of the offender
>must be a motivation.

Yes, I agree, but until people understand how to determine what constitutes 'signature,' the motive aspect won't mean a thing to them. When something is unique and does not assist in committing the crime, it will stand out and then a person can step back and ask, "why." Why would a killer need to do this (signature aspect)?

Rainsong