Ripperology: Questioning the Dogma

[Jon Guy]

Hello Fisherman,

You are quite correct with your observations, it`s just that when this discussion arises it is worth noting, for arguments sake, that as in the case of Kelly, we have a tiny bed in a tiny room yet everything is placed on the bed and table. Personally, I don`t see this trait as theatrical but as something the killer did without thinking which may be a clue in itself.

Excellent suitcase analogy by the way !!

[Supe]

Gentlemen,

We are not unpacking a suitcase here or performing any other normal human activity. Rather, we are discussing the evisceration of a human body, something with which I trust none of you are familiar. Nor should our own logical notions have, I hope, any bearing on what happend that morning in Number 13 Miller's Court. Imposing our own thinking and sense of order on the situation is rather fruitless.

But remember, one man's means is another man's posing.

Don.

[Jon Guy]

We`re just discussin` things, Don ?

[Fisherman]

Jon writes:
"Personally, I don`t see this trait as theatrical but as something the killer did without thinking"

Does that mean, Jon, that you believe that the fact that the different, ehrm, items were found around her body instead of in a heap was something that was inherent with the Ripper? If he did not give it any thought, and still ended up with things distributed the way they were, then what do you mean we are looking at when it comes to his mental disposition?
Don writes:
"We are not unpacking a suitcase here or performing any other normal human activity", and that of course is true. But I fail to see what bearing it would have on where you dispose of things, if disposing of them was all that was involved for him. If the various bits and pieces ment nothing more to him than waste, and if he was placed roughly in the same manner as he cut away, then I would say the logical thing to expect would be to find all parts in roughly the same spot.
Without meaning any offense whatsoever to poor Mary, maybe another analogy could serve here:
I call myself Fisherman, and I am indeed a keen angler. And when I gut a large catch of fish, it all goes overboard the same way. I dont throw some of it over the starboard side and the rest the other way. And that all owes to a sense of practicality - the fish innards are nothing but waste, so why spend any more effort, time or fantasy on it than necessary?

That sort of thinking does not seem to apply in Millerīs Court, does it?

The best!
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Does that mean, Jon, that you believe that the fact that the different, ehrm, items were found around her body instead of in a heap was something that was inherent with the Ripper? If he did not give it any thought, and still ended up with things distributed the way they were, then what do you mean we are looking at when it comes to his mental disposition?

My gut feeling tells me that the Ripper was accustomed to using the knife, dressing and cutting up animals.

[perrymason]

Gentlemen,

We are not unpacking a suitcase here or performing any other normal human activity. Rather, we are discussing the evisceration of a human body, something with which I trust none of you are familiar. Nor should our own logical notions have, I hope, any bearing on what happend that morning in Number 13 Miller's Court. Imposing our own thinking and sense of order on the situation is rather fruitless.

But remember, one man's means is another man's posing.

Don.

Hi Don,

Your quite right about the "suit"ability of such commonplace terms when discussing this case...and in my case, with the sandbox analogy....but does'nt detective work, whether informal and amateur, or professionally executed, require an understanding of the crime scene and the individual facets in terms of their relevance as evidence? I would think its imperative if you are intent on assigning the crime to any one individual.

In that context, placement of organs in other than his pocket, or to the side or on the table, as Pirate re-iterated, must have had some meaning for the killer. Its also the only Canonical murder that has such "placements".

My point to Sam was....whether for the police, Bowyer and McCarthy, the Press, or just himself, the scene in which Mary Kelly takes centre stage is one he crafted.

Splaying legs means little if he is intent on mutilating the abdomen....its a natural position to put her in....placing intestines over the shoulder of a victim is a natural move to have that viscera out of the way, if its something you want that would be awkward removing with the intestines in place...placing skin flaps on the table is in the same vein,....however, severing a breast and lifting the head to place it underneath it is something quite different. Even if you want to get at the heart eventually.

Best regards Don.

[Jeff Leahy]

Gentlemen,
We are not unpacking a suitcase here or performing any other normal human activity. Rather, we are discussing the evisceration of a human body, something with which I trust none of you are familiar. Nor should our own logical notions have, I hope, any bearing on what happend that morning in Number 13 Miller's Court. Imposing our own thinking and sense of order on the situation is rather fruitless.
But remember, one man's means is another man's posing.
Don.

Hi Don, welcome aboard, nice to here from you...

Sam and I have a disagreement...but it is a very finely balanced disagreement. Michael, Jon and Fisherman have been expanding on that disagreement..

I don't think anyone is being disrespectful of the anormity of what took place.

The question is (feel free to kick me if I have this wrong guys)

A. was this blind assault, a frenzy to get at what the killer desired? The result being what we see? Finish.

B. That there was some thought process, design, purpose, to the killers actions? The result being what we see? Finish.

Its a subtle difference of opinion. Well between Sam and I. The others are theorizing..ticking it over I think.

For me the MJK murder scene shows distinct pattern and spacial awareness. If you can see it here, possibly you could make a case at the other murder scenes (though I admit not so good, its pushing it)

I dont think that the organs at MJK are acts of random, discardment. (is that a word?) dispersal?

I think there was a logic to the killer, even if it is not apparent to us..

But then I am interested in Kosminski and Schizophrenia..I admit I'm bias.

Pirate

PS Hey the world never got anywhere without people having a point of view?

PS PS I havnt forgotten I owe you a film date and edit session..Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

But you must admit Sam, there is a certain pattern regarding the finished situation of the excised organs of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

All these organs are found arranged around the body.

There's "arranged", Jon, and there's simply "put". The excised bits that might have appeared "arranged" (i.e. under the head) in Kelly's case were two kidneys, a breast and the uterus - three in total. Compare that with:

Abdominal flaps that were put on the table - three items already
Thigh flesh on table
Spleen found by side of body
Breast on bed near foot
Liver on the bed between the feet
Intestines at right side of corpse, on the bed
Presumably the strips of meat cut from between the ribs ended up piled on the table, too - or dropped onto the mattress near where they were cut

There we have a total of 8 enumerated items, and "N" strips of chest-flesh, found more-or-less dumped on bed and table, against three bits of flesh under Kelly's head. Any or all of these could have been placed around the room, on the mantelpiece, on the chairs, on the dining table, in the cupboard, on the floor, etc etc. They could have been arranged in various shapes, or in a straight line from the window to the bed, like some sick Nazca line drawing the eye towards the corpse. They could have been distributed around the corpse itself, or the guts piled incongruously over Kelly's face - whatever. Any number of permutations one could think of might suggest an "arrangement" - but that's surely not what we have here, when the majority of the bits are plonked haphazardly, asymmetrically and often barely inches from where they once were before they were cut away.

The same argument could be applied to Eddowes' solitary bit of excised colon, placed just "south" of where it was originally, and - for all we know - to Chapman too (although there we lack some detail).

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm sorry Sam but your argument works both ways..

Yes they could have been put..as you put it..or they could have been placed, as I would put it..

and it really is a very fine line of interpretation between the two options.

Why not else where? why not on the floor? why not over the shoulder?

And why leave the body like this? and not dumped on the floor?

Pirate

[Fisherman]

Thereīs "dumped", Sam, and thereīs simply "put" - to paraphrase your answer to Jon.
You are of course right when you say that the killer had many opportunities if he felt that he wanted to arrange what he harvested in a more clear manner. But that has always been quite obvious.

What I feel here is that if you really want to describe the killer as someone who "dumped" the parts as he went along, the way you do, then what we are looking at is not what would have been expected.
People who "dump" things are people who are totally unconcerned where these things end up, more or less, long as they mean no hinderance to themselves.

Now, as Jon has pointed out to us, nothing ended up on the floor. All the bits and pieces we have accounted for are either on the bed or on the bedside table. And you suggest that he "dumped" them there.
So, letīs ask ourselves, what makes us "dump" things? The main incentive for it would be that what we dump, are things we do not want to concern ourselves with anymore, right? If we have a broken bike, for example, we decide that it is something we do not want, and so we dump it.
And where do we dump it? In our living room? On our lawn? Of course not - we dump it some place where it is out of the way, since we donīt want to stumble over it in the future.

If the Ripper felt he needed to dump the parts he cut away, the simple thing to do would be to throw them on the floor in the area between the bed and the fireplace. That way, they would have ment no hinderance for him as he went along, and they would not form an obstacle on his way to the door as he left. Of course, if he did not mind them lying around, he could have just cut them away and let go of them, letting them drop onto the bed randomly. And in some cases, it can be argued that he did just that.

But that does not explain the liver between the feet, for example; why not just drop it closer to where it was cut out? And the flesh on the bedside table - that was not just dumped beside the body, was it? Why is this?

Letīs ask ourselves where the Ripper was situated as he cut them flaps away. The reasonable options would be that he either was standing beside the bed or on his knees on the bed together with the body. In the later case, he would either work from Marys right side or from the area between her legs. The more reasonable guess out of these two is that he was on her right side, since he would not be able to reach the bedside table if he was on his knees between her legs.

In conclusion, I am assuming here that he was on her right side, either on his knees or standing. Basically that would mean that he had his back to the windows as he cut away the flaps from her belly. Add to this a guess that he was right-handed. That would mean that he in all probability was cutting with the right hand, whereas he grabbed the flaps with his left hand in order to dispose of them.
So, with his back to the windows, he finds himself with a cut out flap of flesh from the body in his left hand. That makes the surface on the table just about the most awkward place to access if you need to "dump" the flap somewhere. Flipping it over the body to end up close to the partition wall, yes, throwing it onto the floor between bed and fireside, absolutely. But on the bedside table? Not very likely.
Itīs either that, or he cut all the flesh away first, and only then collected it and put it on the table afterwards. Either way, it does in no way resemble anything that can be dubbed dumping, Sam, not the way I see things.

Another thing to keep in mind here: Go to your local butcherīs and buy a number of roast beefs, freshly cut out and wet with blood. Then try to pile them on each other on a small table. What happens? They start gliding, thatīs what happens. We are dealing with very slippery surfaces here.
Now, take a look at the Kelly picture (number one), and take in the angle of the slope formed by the pile of meat. It is kind of steep, right? And it is all lying very close to the edge of the table.
If it was all flung onto the table, dumping style, why did no part of it slide off the mount, and end up on the floor?
There are three possible answers to this, I think:
1. He got really lucky, and had old Isaac Newton on his side to an astonishing extent.
2. He took really good care as he put it there, carefully balancing the parts.
3. He did NOT put the parts there from the outset. They were lying on the bed for some considerable time, drying up. Later, he decided to build a pile of flesh on the table, and as the parts had dried for some time, they were sticky and easy to pile up.

As you notice, only suggestion 1 allows for a scenario with a killer who "dumped" the parts, and that only applies if you accept that choosing an awkward spot to reach instead of dropping it on the floor could be just as much "dumping".

I am not saying that the Ripper "arranged" the parts, if you by arranging mean that you are forming patterns or straight lines. But I am saying that there is at least some form of neatness, if you like, about the manner in which the parts were left. This could owe to a number of different reasons, ranging from a severe parents demands in his childhood to a will to create as shocking a scene as possible on his own behalf.

Any which way, it goes beyond dumping, Sam!

The best,
Fisherman

[Limehouse]

There's "arranged", Jon, and there's simply "put". The excised bits that might have appeared "arranged" (i.e. under the head) in Kelly's case were two kidneys, a breast and the uterus - three in total. Compare that with:

Abdominal flaps that were put on the table - three items already
Thigh flesh on table
Spleen found by side of body
Breast on bed near foot
Liver on the bed between the feet
Intestines at right side of corpse, on the bed
Presumably the strips of meat cut from between the ribs ended up piled on the table, too - or dropped onto the mattress near where they were cut

There we have a total of 8 enumerated items, and "N" strips of chest-flesh, found more-or-less dumped on bed and table, against three bits of flesh under Kelly's head. Any or all of these could have been placed around the room, on the mantelpiece, on the chairs, on the dining table, in the cupboard, on the floor, etc etc. They could have been arranged in various shapes, or in a straight line from the window to the bed, like some sick Nazca line drawing the eye towards the corpse. They could have been distributed around the corpse itself, or the guts piled incongruously over Kelly's face - whatever. Any number of permutations one could think of might suggest an "arrangement" - but that's surely not what we have here, when the majority of the bits are plonked haphazardly, asymmetrically and often barely inches from where they once were before they were cut away.

The same argument could be applied to Eddowes' solitary bit of excised colon, placed just "south" of where it was originally, and - for all we know - to Chapman too (although there we lack some detail).

When you read this, whether the killer 'put', 'arranged', or 'flung' the human remains around the room, it is clear that the killer was a person who was able to detatch himself from the human he was destroying. This does not read like a revenge killing or part of a plot to cover up an errant Royal's actions - this reads like a revolting and perverted indulgence and, it seems to me, a kind of raison d'etre.

[Bailey]

Fisherman,

Your argument above makes sense, but for one possible flaw - if he was left handed, the bedside table suddenly becomes the perfect spot to place material that was collected with the right hand. And obviously handedness is up for debate, but the possiblity that Jack was a left is hardly a new one...

This does not address your valid point about slippage. However, I would debate how much drying and stickiness would occur in the allowable time frame. I would think that fresh meat stays wet and slippery for some time longer than just a few hours? Though having never dealt with meat fresher than a supermarket, what do I know?

B.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes an excellent post Fisherman.

With the quantity of flesh and organs we are talking about surely a single mound mixed together makes the most sense if the Ripper is simply dumping..

what we appear to have are organs placed around the body. Of course how much consideration was given to the act is a matter of conjecture.

But as we are clearly not dealing with a killer of sane mind who knows what purpose was 'afoot'..certainly not a logical one.

Pirate

PS My guess would be that the killer sat on side of bed to right of body near shoulder, one leg on floor, drawing knife towards him when accessing body cavity. However he probably changed positions. Is there some evidence that an axe was used to strip the flesh from thighs?

[Fisherman]

The more common belief, Bailey, is that the Ripper was right-handed. Much of the evidence points to this. It is also the more probable statistic choice, since close to nine out of ten people are right-handed.

On the topic of the stickyness of the blood, we know that it starts to congeal in a matter of minutes. After that, a number of factors like the quantity of blood present and the temperature guide what happens, but the general direction will be one where we have an increasing stickyness over time.

Returning to the question of left- or righthandedness, we can apply the built-in issues to a number of things connected to the Kelly case. To begin with, we can easily see that Kelly was lying in the wrong fashion for a right-handed man who wanted to reach into her thorax from the abdominal cavity. If we theorize along the lines that he was right-handed and that he was standing up beside the bed as he worked, we realize that it would be extremely awkward to cut away up through the thorax using the right hand.

If Kelly had been lying the other way around, with the head closest to the fireplace, it would facilitate that job enormously. In fact, I would say that it would be almost impossible to take her heart out from a position to the right of the body, if he was to use the right hand as he cut.

Which leaves us with the logical conclusion that he used another position.

And what other possibilities were open to him? They were two: Either he worked from a position to the left of her body, or he did the job from a position between her legs. The former solution seems implausible, since there was very little room left for him between wall and body, and so I would opt for the latter: He was on his knees, between her legs or stradling her as he cut her heart out.
If this is accepted, it may add interesting information on how he went about placing the cut-away parts of the body.
Letīs assume that he cut not only the heart out from such a position: he may well (and probably, I believe) have cut the liver out from the same position. The top part of the liver is situated just below the right nipple, and so the main part of the organ is protected by the rib-cage, meaning that it would have been quite awkward to dig out from a position to the right of Kelly if her killer was indeed right-handed. So letīs assume he took it out as he knelt between her legs.

What does this mean, if it is correct? It of course means that the space where the liver was subsequently found, between her feet, was occupied by the killer himself as he lifted the liver from the abdominal cavity. And that in itīs turn means that he did not just dump it randomly. He must have left the bed himself first, and THEN placed the liver betweeen her feet.

So, you see, what Jeff writes:
"My guess would be that the killer sat on side of bed to right of body near shoulder, one leg on floor, drawing knife towards him when accessing body cavity", simply donīt seem to fit. He could not have reached the heart that way if he was right-handed. Luckily, Jeff also writes "However he probably changed positions", and I would second that, although I would also say that all the damage done could have been done by a right-handed assailant from a position between her legs.

The suggestion of an axe having been used was there from the beginning, but I fail to see why we need to bring more than a sharp knife and a steady hand on stage.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Perhaps I hadn't made myself clear..

I was suggesting that Jack started to the right to access the abdominal area. Similar to the position suggested by Sam at the Eddow's murder. However to access the heart and probably the face, I think he would have had to have changed positions, moving further down the body or as Fisherman says between the legs.

Pirate