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