Apparently by design [Archive]

paul emmett

04-30-2008, 07:03 PM

Hello John, Doc.

I have a take on this, which at best represents a minority position. I feel that JTR was performative and dramatic. So I believe that it's not just the muslin, comb and intestine fragment that are placed by design. Hell, I think the cachous are placed in Stride's hand--and even though I have heard many intelligent folks hypothesize about how she could have held onto them during the attack, I remain unconvinced.

Regarding Chapman, let me quote something Phillips says before he gets to the muslin and comb apparently being placed at her feet. "The left arm was PLACED across the left breast. The legs were drawn up." She has been posed; the repetition of the word "placed" emphasizes that Phillips thinks this. And the pose is almost identical to the pose MJK is found in, left hand, legs and all.

So I think we can learn a lot from the crime scenes and body positionings. And, of course, since I do see Jack as performative and playful, cold and calculating I feel that the graffito and some of the letters are legit. I think, for example, that Jack the Ripper did name himself, and that his selection of a name helps us understand his psyche.

And you?

Sam Flynn

04-30-2008, 09:50 PM

a small piece of coarse muslim......now there'll be trouble ;)

Monty

04-30-2008, 10:01 PM

Jon,

It certainly I have asked before...I myself asked the same question some years back.

'Apparently, by design' is just as intriguing as the word 'placed'.

And Paul, Id also like to cite the neatness of Kellys clothing along with the others you mention.

Monty
:)

Mitch Rowe

04-30-2008, 10:38 PM

The "posing" is another clue to how much time JTR may have had possibly.
None with Polly,Liz,or Kate. But nearly the same with Annie and Mary. I thought that maybe in Annies case the arm sort of fell there after JTR removed the rings from her finger if that the hand she wore them on. But I think its more than just coincidence that those two poses are nearly identical. The arangement of Marys organs are certainly striking. It all seems to point away from a simple "Gather some organs and sell them" idea.
One could assume JTR was tring to say something. But what? Could one of JTRs loved ones have ended up dead in a similar pose? Could the position of the organs represent certain items or articles that were placed beside his mothers body for instance?

I havent a clue as to what to make of it.

Sam Flynn

04-30-2008, 10:52 PM

Could the position of the organs represent certain items or articles that were placed beside his mothers body for instance?She must have died a horrible death, if so, Mitch ;)

Seriously, apart from the organs stuffed under her head, there is little in the Kelly scene that couldn't be explained by the killer's simply dumping the organs out of the way as he went along. To that extent, they may have been about as much "placed" as a dog "places" the earth as it digs for a bone.

paul emmett

05-01-2008, 12:11 AM

Seriously, apart from the organs stuffed under her head, there is little in the Kelly scene that couldn't be explained by the killer's simply dumping the organs out of the way as he went along. To that extent, they may have been about as much "placed" as a dog "places" the earth as it digs for a bone.

Hello, Sam. I am even a bit surprised that you exclude the organs stuffed under her head. But I think your dog analogy is most apt--and literal.

Many people here see JTR as a mad dog, salivating randomly towards a kill. And who does he kill? The first woman he can grab! And what organ does he take? The first one he can grab! And what is his motive? He likes to cut up people, which seems like the first motive we can grab.

That's just not how I see it. I think he is a planner and a performer. I think he knows who he's going to kill, and there is a reason that the first three victims look similar. And there's a reason that the next three don't. And I don't think anyone can just cut up because he likes to cut up: there have to be reasons, conscious and unconscious, WHY they like to cut up. And those reasons can be both pursued and instructive. And they can be pursued through the crime scene.

There's something going on with thier left hands; there's something going on with the fact that the bodies are left posed for sex, for birthing, or foetal. I think Dan's article "Heartless" shows another aspect of JTR's planning, namely that he plans his kills to include mistakes made by his "pursuers" in earlier crimes. It's a joke; it's showing off. It's all planned out. They say I leave messages, OK , I will leave one. They say I'm a Jew, OK, I'm a Jew. Ha Ha!

Like Mitch, I can't explain all of this. But in the past on different threads there have been interesting suggestions as to the meaning of ,say, leaving the uterus, which he seemed to be seeking; the kidneys, which he sought once; and the breast, which he seemed to avoid--all stuffed under MJK's death's head.

And whether one agrees with these suggestions or not, they seem to take us further than the Mad Dog theory.

Jon Guy

05-02-2008, 08:30 PM

Doc,Paul,Sam,Monty and Mitch

Many thanks for your thoughts.

Personally, I can`t see the Eddowe`s colon, or the Chapman`s bits and bobs been placed for our benefit. Whatever mental health issues he had, I believe these moments of " careful arrangements" which seemingly follow the brutality of murder and ripping are part of his illness. To be honest I was hoping someone may have recognised these traits. I was thinking along the lines of autism.

Regarding Kelly`s organ placement,I don`t think the digging dog analogy offered by Sam is accurate (soz Sam !!) as nothing was dropped on the floor, which I feel is significant in pointing to the fact that the killer was careful about where he was putting the organs.All were on the bed and table.
I did think that the mutilations may have commenced when she was in the top corner of her bed and then she was pulled over to the middle, and hence,the organs ended up under head ?

I do believe that these are good clues if we can read them

Anyway, thanks again guys

paul emmett

05-03-2008, 04:16 AM

Personally, I can`t see the Eddowe`s colon, or the Chapman`s bits and bobs been placed for our benefit. Whatever mental health issues he had, I believe these moments of " careful arrangements" which seemingly follow the brutality of murder and ripping are part of his illness. To be honest I was hoping someone may have recognised these traits. I was thinking along the lines of autism.

the mutilations may have commenced when she was in the top corner of her bed and then she was pulled over to the middle, and hence,the organs ended up under head ?

Hi, Jon. Ya know, "it ain't over 'til it's over." So I just wanted to note that in the last quote here, even if she were pulled over, there would have to be some positioning. And don't you think she was pulled over, then mutilated?

More importantly, I think the careful arrangements were indeed part of Jack's mental illness, but that doesn't mean that they weren't for show too.

Most importantly, I would have liked to hear what you had to say about autism here--or maybe OCD?

Doctor X

05-03-2008, 04:56 AM

Gang:

Unfortunately, we are dealing with speculations. One can "es'plain" Mary Kelly as the simple convenience of him placing "bits" near him. I noticed that differences in the references exist regarding "what" was on the table. Anyways, that could be it.

Or . . . he had some "thing" about it.

I tend to go less with "performance art" in that if he WAS why did he not make it more obvious? However, it is all speculation.

He was not the more typical serial killer who taunts the police--he left no messages at the scene. Some discount the graffito for that reason; you cannot prove he wrote it. Same with the letters. Did he write any of them? I am not saying he did not; I am merely acknowledging the debate on the subject. It is not clear. There are not like five letters with details in the same handwriting.

I would think if he was that concerned with creating an impression, he would have done so. That does not remove the possibility he did not play a bit of "silly buggers" with the police.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

paul emmett

05-03-2008, 07:07 AM

it is all speculation.

Hello, J.D.

I think you've hit on THE perfect title for THE book on JTR.

I also liked "bit of 'silly buggers' with the police", because I think JTR is performative, but most subtle. It seems the height of irony to say that JTR wasn't into being obvious when the killings were so "in your face," but I think his silly buggers were quite indirect. The meaning of The Goulston Graffito, for example, is still being debated. The fact that "jack" meant "the penis, espescially when erect" in 1800's British slang(Spears, SLANG AND EUPHEMISM, 208) makes "Jack The Ripper" a morbid but esoteric "joke."

And suppose he did leave a message; suppose he did leave the cachous in Stride's hand to let the police know he was cleaning up those "dirty whores"--well, that would be subtle!

As far as MJK. We know what's on the table, right? Bowyer didn't, but Bond did. Also, you cant put those parts under MJK's head for convienience, can you?

bolo

05-03-2008, 12:29 PM

Sam Flynn

05-03-2008, 02:08 PM

even if [Kelly] were pulled over [from the right side of the bed], there would have to be some positioning [of organs?].If you are referring to the positioning of organs, Paul, it's worth noting that only the spleen was found on the bed at the left side of the body - arguably where the killer spent much of his time during the mutilation. In other words, the killer seems to have kept his "working surface" (i.e. that part of the bed nearest him) relatively uncluttered. This smacks of practicality, rather than a desire to place organs for shock value. If he were interested in the latter, why not pile everything up on the left side of the bed, where someone peeping through the window would have copped a real eye-full; or, indeed as some accounts would have it, strew Kelly's innards all over the room?

Doctor X

05-03-2008, 03:14 PM

I think you've hit on THE perfect title for THE book on JTR.

The Ultimate Complete Speculative Jack the Ripper

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif

*Starts looking for a publisher*

I also liked "bit of 'silly buggers' with the police", because I think JTR is performative, but most subtle. It seems the height of irony to say that JTR wasn't into being obvious when the killings were so "in your face," but I think his silly buggers were quite indirect. The meaning of The Goulston Graffito, for example, is still being debated. The fact that "jack" meant "the penis, espescially when erect" in 1800's British slang(Spears, SLANG AND EUPHEMISM, 208) makes "Jack The Ripper" a morbid but esoteric "joke."

Hrrrm . . . I do not know. I am not convinced that Jack wrote the letter that "coined" the name.

And suppose he did leave a message; suppose he did leave the cachous in Stride's hand to let the police know he was cleaning up those "dirty whores"--well, that would be subtle!

More subtle than some of my posts! Anyways, that can be explain by reflexive flexion of the hands that happens when you separate the spinal cord from the brain--like kill the brain through strangulation/removing perfusion of the brain by opening the carotid and jugular.

As far as MJK. We know what's on the table, right? Bowyer didn't, but Bond did. Also, you cant put those parts under MJK's head for convienience, can you?

Depends on how big the bed is. What I mean by that is, he has to start putting pieces somewhere . . . running out of room. Anyways, my caution is just a caution. It does not take much for me to believe he had a reason for putting organs under her head; the problem is determining what that was from convenience to his disagreement with Prof. Moriarty's binomial theorem. . . .

Sam Flynn and bolo's points are noted. One has to be careful one is not reading significance into things. Granted, with the lack of evidence regarding meaning, it is easy to do that.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

paul emmett

05-03-2008, 06:40 PM

MJK's killer may have placed one of her breasts under the head to make her look to the left so that the first one who'd take a peek through the window into the room would look straight into her gashed face, at least that's the only theoretical "breast placement" explanation I can come up with without reading too much into the whole thing.

It's hard for me to accept that the killer had enough "emotional capacities" left to dig too deeply into some weird symbolism during or shortly after the murders. There may have been design or planning involved but only on a very crude level in order to gross people out.

Hi, bolo.

I quote you at length because, even though I disagree, I think what you say is candid and important. In the first paragraph here, it is, of course, more than a breast: Jack puts breast with kidneys and uterus--two organs he has been concerned with before. But I am most concerned with the phrase, "without reading too much into the whole thing." How do we know when THAT is? I know that you are very careful about the subjective nature of JTR theories, so how can you say when something means and when it doesn't? And just because we can't come up with a theory, a meaning, about ,say, why these organs are under her head, does that mean that JTR had no reason--conscious or unconscious--for putting them there?

In the second paragraph above I feel that you do give the reason for why for you JTR can't be doing something that has symbolic meaning for him: "It's hard for me to accept that the killer had enough 'emotional capacities' left . . .." Again, I don't see why. But I fear that it's just a cleaned up version of the Mad Dog theory I discussed earlier in this thread. And again I know you are open-minded, but I think the phrase "hard for me to accept" is relevant. I think somewhere, maybe in our own unconscious, we are doing our own cleaned up version of the 1888 feeling that it was hard to accept that JTR was an Englishman. Now it still seems hard to accept that JTR could have been an intelligent, controlled, playful, non-salivating Enlishman--or perhaps human being.

I think that if one finds numerous instances which suggest cold and calculating, then JTR's most likely cold and calculating.

paul emmett

05-03-2008, 06:49 PM

If you are referring to the positioning of organs, Paul, it's worth noting that only the spleen was found on the bed at the left side of the body

Hi, Sam. Actually, I wasn't. I was trying to respond to the suggestion that the breast, uterus and kidneys were under her head because Kelly's body was rolled over onto them after they were removed.

Also, I'm not even going for shock value here: I just wanted to say that this placement smacks more of design--and that I felt Jack rolled the body over TO faccilitate organ removal.

Trevor Marriott

05-03-2008, 07:06 PM

Why not look upon what he did to Kelly as part of his signature.

With Chapman and Eddowes he removed intestines.

With Kelly he had more time and removed almost everything a natural progression.

paul emmett

05-03-2008, 07:07 PM

Hrrrm . . . I do not know. I am not convinced that Jack wrote the letter that "coined" the name.

Anyways, that[holding on to the cachous] can be explain by reflexive flexion of the hands that happens when you separate the spinal cord from the brain--like kill the brain through strangulation/removing perfusion of the brain by opening the carotid and jugular.

One has to be careful one is not reading significance [i]into things. Granted, with the lack of evidence regarding meaning, it is easy to do that.

Hi, J.D.

I'm still thinking publishers will be coming to you on this one.

Without arguing the authenticity of the letter, I'd just comment that showing that JTR is subtilely performative works two ways. Once the instances start to accumulate, then new instances--like the letter--fit more readily into the picture being painted. And I do think that the "logic" in the P.S. of "Dear Boss" is a lot like the "logic" of The GG.

Finally, while reflexive flexion does take over, I just can't see why Stride wouldn't drop them cachous to struggle back, break her fall, protect her throat, whatever.

Good luck with that book thing.

Sam Flynn

05-03-2008, 07:21 PM

I felt Jack [moved] the body over TO facilitate organ removal.I agree with you there - although we must be very careful which words we use in that case. Although it takes more keystrokes, I prefer the phrase "for practical reasons" over "by design".

JSchmidt

05-03-2008, 07:25 PM

If I understand the statement of Dr. Phillips correctly, she was killed by serverance of her carotid while being rolled on her left side. The perpetrator may have rolled her back in a more flat position.

The wounds inflicted on poor MJK seem to be really vicious and arbitrary. No obvious patterns, no symmetry to the wounds on thighs and pubes. The same on her face. All external features at least partly removed (why not completely?) and the general structure destroyed by cuts.
Makes me wonder why he should be at least somewhat methodical in the placement of the removed bits and parts when he is so sloppy in removing some and not the others.
But then again the organs are strewn about. The question now is really if he just packed them where there was space for them or if he wanted to stash them in any specific order and spacing.
My gut feeling (apart from being a bit queasy after rereading Dr. Bond's postmortem) tells me it was more pragmatism. But I can't substantiate it. And that irks me.

What I find troubling are the jagged cuts on her arms and forearms. Defensive wounds maybe? Do we have those on any other Macnaghten Five victims?

perrymason

05-03-2008, 07:35 PM

Hi Jon,

You can suggest that the intestines over the shoulders was probably for killer convenience, and items by the bodies could have shaken loose and fallen where found, but you cannot suggest that organs found placed under extremities was accidental.

Also, one account of Kate had that 2 foot section "twisted into her neck wound". That is a lone account, and should be taken with that in mind, but that would constitute intentional placement if accurate.

I think part of the reason these kills took place outdoors, with a single exception, is that it afforded the killer an opportunity to confound investigations by creating a spectacle...masking any real intentions with the overwhelming horror of the site itself. You can safely assume that many of these policeman hadnt seen anything like this before, nor would again.

I believe one explanation for Mary Janes crime scene is that the killer masked a simple intention of murder behind a perceived mad killers flailing knife. The more complex the motive appears, the better it is for that kind of killer.

To JS....Mary is the only one with probable defensive wounds. She is therefore the only one that wasnt subdued and lowered to the ground before the killer even used the knife. The other possible exception is of course Liz. Its painfully obvious these two murders were quite different from the rest.

Cheers.

bolo

05-03-2008, 09:49 PM

Hi, bolo.

I quote you at length because, even though I disagree, I think what you say is candid and important. In the first paragraph here, it is, of course, more than a breast: Jack puts breast with kidneys and uterus--two organs he has been concerned with before. But I am most concerned with the phrase, "without reading too much into the whole thing." How do we know when THAT is? I know that you are very careful about the subjective nature of JTR theories, so how can you say when something means and when it doesn't? And just because we can't come up with a theory, a meaning, about ,say, why these organs are under her head, does that mean that JTR had no reason--conscious or unconscious--for putting them there?

I would not go as far as rejecting theories on the design question per se, even if they don't completely make sense to me. My suggestion that the breast (I unintentionally left out the uterus and kidneys) may have been used as a support for the head is an attempt of a more practical approach to something that can be easily over-analyzed if one looks too hard at the mess that is Mary's body (or Kate's for that matter), similar to the figures and schemes that start to appear if you lie on your back in the grass and watch the clouds in the sky on a warm spring day for a while. I have a bunch of way more unorthodox theories on the question of design as well but I always get a rather bad feeling when discussing them, I fear that this blurrs my and other peoples' focus on the facts... interesting as these theories may be.

That is what I mean with "reading too much into it". Of course there is a reason why the breast, kidneys and uterus ended up under Mary's head or the liver between her feet so it's definitely worthwhile to discuss these things. Personally I just try to keep my feet as firmly on the ground as possible in this regard.

In the second paragraph above I feel that you do give the reason for why for you JTR can't be doing something that has symbolic meaning for him: "It's hard for me to accept that the killer had enough 'emotional capacities' left . . .." Again, I don't see why. But I fear that it's just a cleaned up version of the Mad Dog theory I discussed earlier in this thread. And again I know you are open-minded, but I think the phrase "hard for me to accept" is relevant. I think somewhere, maybe in our own unconscious, we are doing our own cleaned up version of the 1888 feeling that it was hard to accept that JTR was an Englishman. Now it still seems hard to accept that JTR could have been an intelligent, controlled, playful, non-salivating Enlishman--or perhaps human being.

I think that if one finds numerous instances which suggest cold and calculating, then JTR's most likely cold and calculating.

Good points.

I, too, think that the killer was extremly cold and even calculating to some extend, I also never really bought the lone madman theory. A raving, uncontrollable madman probably would not be able to focus his mind on the task of sneaky murder - but it also doesn't take an invincible criminal mastermind with a gusto for elaborate symbolism to rip a woman up and place her organs and intestines around her body. The question wether the wounds and organ placement was intentend or not and/or followed a certain symbolism is certainly valid but the answers may be much more prosaic than we think... :)

paul emmett

05-04-2008, 12:42 AM

similar to the figures and schemes that start to appear if you lie on your back in the grass and watch the clouds in the sky on a warm spring day for a while. I have a bunch of way more unorthodox theories on the question of design as well but I always get a rather bad feeling when discussing them, I fear that this blurrs my and other peoples' focus on the facts... interesting as these theories may be.

it also doesn't take an invincible criminal mastermind with a gusto for elaborate symbolism to rip a woman up and place her organs and intestines around her body.

Hi, bolo.

I'm okay with feet on the ground, but those clouds in the sky give me pause. I know that your cloud analogy is a respected argument against reading in or finding meaning in chaos. But I think there is a crucial difference between cloud gazing and crime scene gazing. Clouds are shaped by what? Chance? God?? Scientific principles??? The crime scene was shaped by a human psyche, a psyche which made certian choices, choices which JTR might have been aware of or not. So he could have had "a gusto for elaborate symbolism"(nice phrase), or he could have made choices driven by early repressed trauma, or he could have just been in a hurry--or more likely some kind of combination of the above and more. But it seems to me that, unlike the cloud case, there is meaning in the crime scene, and it is the scholar's job to try to find it.

By the by, your unorthodox theories on the question of design sound intriuging. But I don't want you to go to bad feelings.

bolo

05-04-2008, 01:53 AM

Hi, bolo.

I'm okay with feet on the ground, but those clouds in the sky give me pause. I know that your cloud analogy is a respected argument against reading in or finding meaning in chaos. But I think there is a crucial difference between cloud gazing and crime scene gazing. Clouds are shaped by what? Chance? God?? Scientific principles??? The crime scene was shaped by a human psyche, a psyche which made certian choices, choices which JTR might have been aware of or not. So he could have had "a gusto for elaborate symbolism"(nice phrase), or he could have made choices driven by early repressed trauma, or he could have just been in a hurry--or more likely some kind of combination of the above and more. But it seems to me that, unlike the cloud case, there is meaning in the crime scene, and it is the scholar's job to try to find it.

The thing is - we probably know more about cloud formations and the human brain that constantly tries to make sense of visual input ("put us in picture") than what really happened in Miller's Court 13, Mitre Square or Hanbury Street, so the cloud gazing analogy is not too far off it seems; there is lots of speculation and self-deceit involved in both cases.

Trouble is that things may get out of hand quite quickly as soon as people start taking their own extravagant theories too seriously. Theorizing over hidden symbolic meanings of victim wounds or kidneys under one's head is all fine and dandy but we should be very careful with the results, or how we apply them. That's my main gripe I have with boundless theorizing, it's not the theorizing itself that gives me headaches (it's fun, no doubt about that), it's people jumping to overly quick conclusions inspired by overly creative theories...

By the by, your unorthodox theories on the question of design sound intriuging. But I don't want you to go to bad feelings.

Maybe I will come back to that later on in a Pub thread when I have a crate of German beer handy, I'll give you a shout! :)

perrymason

05-04-2008, 03:19 AM

Using only what is imperical evidence, Mary Jane Kelly is the only victim that had things deliberately placed for certain. Why... is certainly up for grabs, but not the intentional placement of things about the corpse.

She is therefore the only victim within the Canon that we can say this about with any certainty.

Best regards.

paul emmett

05-04-2008, 07:30 AM

Hello, Michael.

I would say we're most certian with MJK, but there's still Chapman and her muslin and comb, Eddowes and her intestine and thimble, Stride and her cachous:pleased:.

Night.

perrymason

05-04-2008, 03:46 PM

Hi Paul,

I know what youre saying, but in terms of anything that we can interpret by using only the crime scenes as evidence, it is only certain that 1 victim had "things" deliberately placed by the body...in Marys case, under her head and extremities.

The intestines of Annie and Kate were likely taken out and placed out of the killers way...not a "design", but a gesture of utility...they needed to go somewhere out of the way. So what the real mysteries are with other Canonicals are the items left by Annie, the glasses case and torn envelope corner, are they there as a result of being shaken free, or flew from her inner skirt pocket when the killer ripped it open,.. why are her rings gone... why a two foot section of colon is cut off and it ended up between Kates arm and body, why the thimble and tea tin were loose. Liz was apparently holding the cashous...the fact that the wrapper is locked in her grip doesnt seem to lead to a conclusion it was placed there by her killer...she had them in her hand when attacked...something that probably lasted a second or two. Why she had them out...I think leads to a question of her level of fear just prior to her death...

The only element above that could be "design" at first glance is the colon section...and I suspect he just tired of having it impede him. My point was that before starting to concoct a rationale for all the "posed" elements of the crime scenes, best to be sure what ones likely were posed. Using pocket contents found on the ground is not sure footing.

If the killer in room 13, after killing Mary, wanted to create an environment that a Ripper would leave, he would be placing things about, like he read Jack does...only he didnt know why Jack did that, or what if any organs were his targets to take home. I believe the reason that a few actions commenced on Mary Kelly were incomplete...like thigh flesh removal, is because as he created the scene he was remembering... things he'd read or heard...and would abruptly stop one action to re-create a specific other action as it occurred to him.

I believe the evidence in # 13 suggests a killer that chose to create a Ripper scene on the spot...not before he entered her room.

Cheers Paul

paul emmett

05-04-2008, 06:28 PM

Liz was apparently holding the cashous...the fact that the wrapper is locked in her grip doesnt seem to lead to a conclusion it was placed there by her killer...she had them in her hand when attacked...something that probably lasted a second or two.

I believe the evidence in # 13 suggests a killer that chose to create a Ripper scene on the spot...not before he entered her room.

Hi, Michael. I just have some scattered points.

When I said "intestine" in my last post, I too was referring to the piece of colon placed between E's arm and body.

I fear I'm becoming the cachous advocate, but your phrase "locked in her grip" is too strong. Some reports say "in," some say "holding," and Swanson says "lying in hand." Blackwell says, the left hand was "nearly open" with the packet "lodged between the thumb and forefinger." Like everything else in this case, this is a bit ambiguous. I don't see it as locked because the hand is nearly open, not clenched. Taken with Swanson's "lying," "lodged" could even suggest agency--had been lodged. Whatever it is, I say that if Stride is pulled back by her scarf, she's dropping them.

I know what you feel about Kelly's killer, and I know you marshal a telling list of differences, so I'm not going that way. But I would like to say three things. One, the positioning of Kelly's body is so similar to Chapman's, that you--or at least I--would think the killer would have done a better overall job of imitating. Two, if he is dancing in the dark about what to take from the scene, I would think he would take ears, considering all the publicity "Dear, Boss" must have gotten. Three, I think Dan's article "Heartless" does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself--or rather copycatted that popular image of himself--like a heart taker--which you, in turn, refer to.

Have a good day.

Sam Flynn

05-04-2008, 06:46 PM

I think Dan's article "Heartless" does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself.Not pretending to "know his mind", my summation of Dan's fine article is that he was only offering up the notion of "Jack-as-Copycat" as a possibility. I don't think it fair to conclude that Dan intended to show, or believes, that JTR was a copycat at all.

paul emmett

05-04-2008, 09:00 PM

Not pretending to know his mind either, so as a general theoretical question: What in the world would be the sense in working so hard to demonstrate something you didn't believe--at least to a degree?? Besides, sidestepping the intentional fallacy, I did say that his article shows . . ..

Sam Flynn

05-04-2008, 09:08 PM

What in the world would be the sense in working so hard to demonstrate something you didn't believe?There is nothing wrong with setting out the evidence for a case in which one doesn't firmly believe, if the aim is to establish a level playing field for one argument amongst others - in fact, it's a positively civilised thing to do. One doesn't need to advocate a given position in order to assess and/or present the evidence for it. Lawyers do it practically every day - so it's not as if it's unusual either.

And, to repeat: I really don't think Dan set out to demonstrate that JTR copycatted his own publicity, which is what you maintained earlier. He merely presented a fair case for the idea, and offered it up as a possibility. Nothing more.

Ben

05-04-2008, 09:36 PM

I must say, the idea that the killer may have derived inspiration from reports of criminal activity wrongly attributed to him (such as false report of a chalked message or a missing heart etc) seems quite plausible to me. I believe Steve Wright did something similar in the Ipswitch series, if memory serves. It was stated at the time that he had posed the bodies in a psuedo-angelic or "crucifix" style. Wright didn't so anything of the sort until those reports appeared.

Best regards,
Ben

paul emmett

05-04-2008, 10:33 PM

And, to repeat: I really don't think Dan set out to demonstrate that JTR copycatted his own publicity, which is what you maintained earlier. He merely presented a fair case for the idea, and offered it up as a possibility. Nothing more.

Sam, let ME repeat. I never maintained that "Dan set out to demonstrate" anything! Indeed, in the very quote of mine that you headed your first disagreement with, I had said, "DAN'S ARTICLE 'Heartless' does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself."

I was never presuming to say what Dan believed or intended; I only discussed what his article demonstrated to me. And since you have already noted that you can't presume to say what Dan intended, all we are left with is our reactions to "Heartless." And I just think that I found it more convincing that you did.

Ben, The Wright thing is most interesting. I do think that what I take to be the thesis of "Heartless" can be expanded for JTR and beyond him.

Sam Flynn

05-04-2008, 10:41 PM

Sam, let ME repeat. I never maintained that "Dan set out to demonstrate" anything!The way in which you phrased your assertion did precisely that - apologies if you didn't intend that, but that's how it came out.Indeed, in the very quote of mine that you headed your first disagreement with, I had said, "DAN'S ARTICLE 'Heartless' does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself." Exactly - which is why I raised the issue with you in the first place. One would be forgiven, from reading your summation of the article, of thinking that it shows categorically that Jack was a copycat - it didn't. It merely argues the case and offers it as a possibility.

For absolute clarity let me rephrase your words, hopefully in a manner that is both fair, and which gives my view on the article at the same time:

"Dan's article Heartless does a fine job of presenting a case for the argument that JTR may have copycatted his publicity".

paul emmett

05-04-2008, 10:58 PM

For absolute clarity let me rephrase your words, hopefully in a manner that is both fair, and which gives my view on the article at the same time:

"Dan's article Heartless does a fine job of presenting a case for the argument that JTR may have copycatted his publicity".

Sam, there are two things at issue: one that, philisophically if you will, I don't think anyone can say what an authour intended. I take it we agree here; I never said Dan intended . . .. The other point is how convinced we were by the article. Your above paraphrase is what you think, AND it doesn't claim that I know what Dan intended. GOOD! But it's not a paraphrase of what I had said because I wanted to convey that I found the article convincing. 100%? Nothing is. So I said, "'Heartless' does a fine job of showing that JTR copycatted himself." And that's what I still think. Maybe if I emend "showing" to "suggesting"?

I just read on another thread that you had written on the O letter. I regret that it was lost, because I am interested in both the allusions and the rhythmns.

Sam Flynn

05-04-2008, 11:01 PM

Maybe if I emend "showing" to "suggesting"?That will do nicely! At least we both understand what each other meant now :)

Dan Norder

05-04-2008, 11:11 PM

Well, if anyone is unsure about my intent in writing the article, they could always ask... but in the end people will have to come to their own conclusions about it. I specifically wrote it very open ended because I thought the instances of false reports coming true later as well as the concept of the killer changing to live up to his own legend were important enough that they needed to be presented without too strong of an accompanying opinion about their meaning. All too often in this field people disagree with a conclusion and then toss out the evidence that was being used to support it as well, and I didn't want that to happen.

Well, that and I don't tend to jump to strong conclusions anyway. I'm a "follow the evidence" kind of person, and we just don't have enough of it for most of the conclusions people want to make in this field.

paul emmett

05-05-2008, 02:11 AM

Well, if anyone is unsure about my intent in writing the article, they could always ask... but in the end people will have to come to their own conclusions about it.

Thanks, Dan.

I guess you can tell that I liked it, even though I think I interpeted the telling examples that you provided of Jack living up to his billings as him being more playful than you did. It made me want to look for other examples, both in JTR's killings and those of other serial killers. And it made me look at an old subject in a new way.

Oh, the reason above was indeed why I wouldn't have asked you, but I appreciated your explanation.

Thanks, Sam.

We did get there.

perrymason

05-05-2008, 04:44 AM

Hi Folks,

Missed a few points due to some golf, but just would add that I enjoyed Dans article a great deal too. Well researched and a story with a spine...a good piece, thought provoking.

My position is that these situations we look at are not like math equations, where a fixed set of numbers just needs to be calculated to arrive at a solution. This is more like a long distance snipers situation, where everything about the situation has to be factored to be able to take out something in a foot square space 2000 yards away. Temperature, air currents, humidity, time of day, of year, height, trajectory path for a 6 second flight..

Its no different than this study I think. What, where, who, when, year, place, social climate, economic climate, police resident relations, plots brewing, power struggles....this has it all....and its all potentially relevant.

So "by design" has a myriad of possible interpretations.

Best regards all.