Ripperology: Questioning the Dogma

[Sam Flynn]

If you feel that I am pushing some sort of "hidden meaning" mumbo jumbo here, you are wrong, Sam. I donīt. The one and only thing I am saying is that the Kelly murder scene is not a haphazard one FOR SOME REASON - and I donīt know what reason that is.

The reason is simple, if you're prepared to entertain the straightforward possibility that Jack simply shoved things out of the way so that he wouldn't be hindered in his excavations. The neat, symmetrical cone of a mole-hill might look rather impressive, but it is after all only the mundane consequence of earth being pushed aside by a primitive animal's paws.

When I look at it all, it most of all suggests a sort of neatness to me, however strange that may sound.

It doesn't sound strange, Fish - in fact I agree. The fact that organs and pieces of flesh were shunted out of the way on the bed (arbitrarily, for the most part) and piled (yes, piled) onto a nearby table looks to me like he was being methodical and somewhat practical - "neat" if you like. However, neatness doesn't necessarily imply that what he was doing had any meaning, or any purpose, other than to clear things out as he went along.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes Fisherman..by design, I agree

[Fisherman]

Right, Sam; a few minutes to spare, so letīs move on!

You write:
"Which is why I excepted them in my earlier post, Fish - on the basis that they might have been an improvised prop. "

An improvised prop? Whatever for? Practical purposes?? Some elaboration, please...?

Anyhow, I feel that these things are better INcluded than EXcluded...

After that, you deprive me of the "Jack-was-a-nutter-card" and ask me to interpret the symbolism, and that, Sam, would have left you a dead certain winner of that argument. Had I wanted to have it, that is. I donīt, however.

If you feel that I am pushing some sort of "hidden meaning" mumbo jumbo here, you are wrong, Sam. I donīt. The one and only thing I am saying is that the Kelly murder scene is not a haphazard one FOR SOME REASON - and I donīt know what reason that is.
Care has been taken not to drop parts on the floor, organs have seemingly been collected to some weird sort of pillow, the flesh on the table has been laid in a pile, the liver has ended up a fair distance from where it was taken out, and, would you believe it? - right between the feet. The rest of the organs have been distributed (consciously or not) around her body.

When I look at it all, it most of all suggests a sort of neatness to me, however strange that may sound. Another element that suits that frame are the untouched eyeballs. Yes, they lie low in their cavities, and that may have played a role, but that role would have been thrown out of the window if her killer had been dead set to destroy them. Instead, it seems care has been taken not to do just that. Neat. Nice, neat and orderly, something that swears against the fact that the Kelly murder scene is one of the worst and most grotesque I have ever seen.

...and that is the answer I have for you, when it comes to explaining what I see and why I see it.
I noticed you did not answer my question about how the Ripper was positioned when he cut her heart out. Any reason for that? Or should I not ask?

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Heart Transplant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrDr4...eature=related


Hi Sam, I have discovered an early reconstruction which I think illustrates my point perfectly.

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

Taking the camera from the bag is very much a part of teh film making process.

It's only a means to an end, Jeff - in much the same way that clearing bits of meat out of the way allows for a clutter-free mutilating experience... or so my granny used to teach me.

I'll leave it at that, on the basis that going further down this analogical rabbit hole clearly won't improve things.

Thanks for the apology

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry Sam I was getting over excited and didnt mean to infer you were 'talking' rubbish, its actually quite an interesting perspective.

However I disagree with you.

Taking the camera from the bag is very much a part of teh film making process..There are so many things to remember that a film shoot becomes a very ritualized undertaking over the years..putting my batteries on charge before i go to bed...always check you have the base plate on tripod before leaving door....

Cellophane comes off only before I change tape, always de-tab tape when removed from camera..always clean lens, double check lens is clean, 30 secs bars and tone...double check white balance..

Actually there are few things less ritualized than making a film.

And its all the checks that go to the final product. It is a whole process.

Its not something you can really teach someone, its an instinct. You experience it and you know when its right or wrong...

And ritualization is what we are talking about here not just mindless destruction (perhaps mindful destruction?) or point a camera and pray.

Yours Jeff

PS are we still mates?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, removing the cellophane (I can't believe we're having this conversation) is indeed part of the creative process. Of course removing the camera from the bag is aswell.

I can't believe we're having this conversation either, DarkP, anymore than I can believe what I'm reading. Therefore I'm giving up

[Sam Flynn]

"this isn't idle speculation on my part - that's what the entire scene looks like"

Not when it comes to kidneys, uterus and breast, it ainīt, Sam.

Which is why I excepted them in my earlier post, Fish - on the basis that they might have been an improvised prop.

If we are to believe that there's some "symbolic" reason (as opposed to a banal, practical reason) for his doing so, we must explain why he put a pair of kidneys, a breast and a uterus together. Why one, but not both breasts? Why not just both breasts and the uterus (feminine connotation)? Why not a 2' piece of colon, the vulva, the buttocks and the kidneys (excretory connotation)? Why not shove items in her mouth (degrading connotation)? Why only stuff bits under her head, and not elsewhere (e.g. rest the feet on the liver, put the other breast under her foot, drape the abdominal flaps over her arms instead of putting them on the table...)?

PS: The "favourite Ripperologist's trump card" (of saying "Jack was a nutter, so what made sense to him might not make sense to us") is not allowed

[DarkPassenger]

Sam, removing the cellophane (I can't believe we're having this conversation) is indeed part of the creative process. Of course removing the camera from the bag is aswell.

Serial murderers are ritualistic and totemistic (yes, I know, it's probably not a word). Everything from spotting a girl in the street to putting your "hunting" boots on is part of the serial murder experience. Every single part.

[Sam Flynn]

Rubbish the interior decorator imagines it all in his mind, does some sketches, carefully selects the wallpaper, lovingly cuts it to size and stands back to admire what he has done..It's a complete process and removing the wallpaper from the cellophane is part of the whole process...not a separate act in itself.

Of course the unwrapping of the cellophane isn't part of the creative process. You say you're a film-maker: does pulling your camera out of its bag count as part of the whole process of making a film? Of course it doesn't - except in the most peripheral sense imaginable.

PS: Don't go around "rubbishing" people who are trying to have a civilised discussion with you. It's not very polite.

[Jeff Leahy]

B. Chopping onions is to the art of cooking is what removing the cellophane from a roll of wallpaper is to the art of interior decorating.

Rubbish the interior decorator imagines it all in his mind, does some sketches, carefully selects the wallpaper, lovingly cuts it to size and stands back to admire what he has done..It's a complete process and removing the wallpaper from the cellophane is part of the whole process...not a separate act in itself.

[Fisherman]

Sam asks:
"Have you actually looked at that heap of offal on the bedside table?"

Actually, Sam, I have. In another fashion than you have, perhaps.

One thing that leaps to mind when I (not you, perhaps...) look at that table, is that there is a large surface unused. All the meat is lying in a heap - just like you say.
Now, if you had a table at your disposal, and a fair amount of space on it - would you pile things on each other at the edge of the table instead of taking advantage of the whole surface at your disposal? There is a significant number of pieces on that table, Sam, and if they were put there as he went along, one by one, it seems odd not to put them beside each other. It all kind of resembles five half onions balanced on each other, if you take my meaning!
One suitable explanation may of course be that he first cut away all that meat, and then collected it with both hands and put it on the table. THAT would produce a more credible explanation to what we are looking at, than a notion that he was stacdking things on top of each other.

I donīt want you to misunderstand me here, Sam. I am not saying that he necessarily "staged" things, although I am not rejecting the possibility. But I am saying that the kidneys, uterus and one of the breasts are NOT "just discarded and plopped down on the bed ".

"this isn't idle speculation on my part - that's what the entire scene looks like"

Not when it comes to kidneys, uterus and breast, it ainīt, Sam. And I think you are speaking less about what the scene looks like than of how you look on it.
I would be much interested in your point on where the Ripper was positioned as he cut liver and heart away, and which hand it was that held the blade. I made some points about it a few posts back, and your wiew would be welcomed, as usual!

Regretfully, I shanīt be able to answer forthcoming post from your side for the next couple of hours, but I will try to find time this evening!

The very best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

And really I can’t see the comparison because A. jack wasn’t in the kitchen he was in the bedroom.

And B. Surely cooking is an art form and contradicts the point you are trying to make.

The comparisons are, I believe, extremely valid when one rises above the specifics and looks at the bigger picture, Jeff. To answer your points:

A. Bed, cobbles or paving slabs - Jack's work surfaces. The surroundings are secondary to the purpose;

B. Chopping onions is to the art of cooking is what removing the cellophane from a roll of wallpaper is to the art of interior decorating.

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree, Fish - the small collection of objects under the head excepted, and even then on the basis that they may just have been an improvised prop. Have you actually looked at that heap of offal on the bedside table? "Heap" being the operative word - there's no "pattern" there, period. It's just a jumble of bits piled haphazardly on top of one another. Ditto the "novelties" the killer excavated from the burst Christmas cracker of Mary's abdomen - they're just discarded and plopped down on the bed within arm's length, often only inches from where they were cut out.

There appears not to have been one single bodily item that was placed anywhere else in the room, which only adds weight that the bed was little more than a "chopping board", and the table a handy surface on which to plonk things down while he focused on making as much a mess of the body as possible. What's more, this isn't idle speculation on my part - that's what the entire scene looks like. Unless the proposal is that the killer is double-bluffing us, by deliberately placing hacked off pieces of flesh to look as if there was no pattern at all!

[Jeff Leahy]

Surely anyone cutting anything in a kitchen would be giving thought to Hygiene?

If it were meat for instance you’d use one chopping board and wash it completely after placing meat in baking tray. Then wash your hands.

That stops possible contamination. The chief in this picture simply has a different purpose

And really I can’t see the comparison because A. jack wasn’t in the kitchen he was in the bedroom. (actually I suppose Technically he was in the part of the building that was originally the kitchen)

And B. Surely cooking is an art form and contradicts the point you are trying to make.

Comparing Jack to a chief is actually a good metaphor.

What was he cooking?

Pirate

PS Hope you don’t mind me taking a contrary stance on this one but I guess you know where I’m coming from...