Ripperology: Questioning the Dogma

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes Fisherman..by design, I agree

[Sam Flynn]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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?

I missed your question, that's all, Fish. Given that the left lung was intact, but the lower part of the right lung was broken and torn away, it suggests that he was reaching up under the ribcage from a position to the left of the body.

Anyhow - that's a very specific point not connected with any Ripperological "dogma", so let's not elaborate too much upon it on this thread.

[Sam Flynn]

Following on from the above, this is turning into a very specific "Kelly logistics" discussion, and I've just realised that this is a general thread about Ripperological dogma in general. Time to move on, or pick this up on another thread. I'm sure there are various Kelly-related discussions where this should properly belong.

[perrymason]

Following on from the above, this is turning into a very specific "Kelly logistics" discussion, and I've just realised that this is a general thread about Ripperological dogma in general. Time to move on, or pick this up on another thread. I'm sure there are various Kelly-related discussions where this should properly belong.

Excellent point Gareth, I just re-read rj's intro and he started us on an intriguing path....hope he continues his journey.

Best regards Sam

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn writes:

" ... 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."

Agreed, Sam - an orderly behaviour does not in itself imply any meaning. It however tells us something about the killer, whichever way we look upon it. And to find out as much as possible about how important the "neatness" ment to him, we should look at what lenghts he went to to ensure it.

You write:
"Given that the left lung was intact, but the lower part of the right lung was broken and torn away, it suggests that he was reaching up under the ribcage from a position to the left of the body.
Anyhow - that's a very specific point not connected with any Ripperological "dogma".

Preumably, that means that you believe that he was on the bed with her, between the partition wall and the body? If so, it can of course be discussed whether that would mean an explanation to the right lung being damaged. If he was right-handed, working from her left, I´d say that the ribcage would have protected the right lung more than the left one. Myself, I think that there was not very much room to the side of her, and I think it more probable that it was done from a position between her legs. That is also why I think the issue touches on the Ripper dogma very much, since the question of whether he was just showing things aside or whether he did something more is touched upon by it, this exemplified by the livers position in a space where he may have worked from.

Under all circumstances, when you - referring to the pile of flesh on the table - write that it was all "...only the mundane consequence of earth being pushed aside by a primitive animal's paws", I find it hard to agree fully, if we apply your sentence on the deed as a whole. And it ought to be said that i truly strive to find a simple explanation in all cases. I would have liked to agree with you, but I genuinely think the Kelly scene compells me not to. "The primitive animal" that killed Mary Kelly took care as he worked. He did NOT just shove things aside, he chose places to put the parts, places that were not the ones that offered themselves as the easiest choices, and he topped things off by placing the weird collection of kidneys, uterus and a breas under her head, something that must be regarded as something very close to a clincher for those who hold the wiew that the placings of the bits and pieces went beyond what could be called coincidential.
You speak of the Ripper forming an improvised prop, and I would very much like to hear your explanation as to why, Sam. If we apply it all to the question of Ripperological dogma, the two most common suggestions thrown forward are that A/ The Ripper staged the scene so as to scare the **** out of the people who entered the room. or that B/ There was an element of scorning in it, a mean and sadistic gesture.

So far, I have never seen anybody ask themselves what meaning is normally hidden in lifting a persons´head and pushing some sort of support, like a pillow, under it.
Entering the realms of conjecture, I think it the combination of a killer who places the parts he cuts away with some care, ensuring that nothing is spilled on the floor, and somebody who lifts the head of a woman and lowers it on a pillow of her own organs, makes for an interesting discussion to say the least...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

You speak of the Ripper forming an improvised prop, and I would very much like to hear your explanation as to why, Sam. If we apply it all to the question of Ripperological dogma, the two most common suggestions thrown forward are that A/ The Ripper staged the scene so as to scare the **** out of the people who entered the room. or that B/ There was an element of scorning in it, a mean and sadistic gesture.

He could have done a heck of a lot worse, if "A" or "B" were his aim, Fish, and he had ample opportunity to do so - therefore I'd tend to rule them out. It may have been simply because he thought she looked "better" that way. I see no reason to read much meaning into it, given that there's little connection - symbolic or otherwise - between a breast (again, it was only one breast), the womb and a pair of kidneys. It seems he grabbed whatever was at hand and stuffed them under the head, or placed them on the pillow for the head to loll over and cover them inadvertently.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn writes:

"He could have done a heck of a lot worse, if "A" or "B" were his aim"

Admittedly so, Sam - then again, I do not feel that we must be looking at something extremely elaborate to recognize that we are not dealing with somebody who cared not about where the pieces went, somebody who just shoved things away as he kept going. There is always the possibility to take things one step longer, but there is not always the need to crave it in order to realize that we may be well past the practical shoving aside stage.

"It may have been simply because he thought she looked "better" that way"

...meaning that he actually "staged" things - but only to satisfy himself? An interesting possibility, and something that can absolutely not be ruled out.

"I see no reason to read much meaning into it, given that there's little connection - symbolic or otherwise - between a breast (again, it was only one breast), the womb and a pair of kidneys. It seems he grabbed whatever was at hand and stuffed them under the head"

I refrain from reading any symbolic meaning into it too, Sam. But that is not because I rule out that there may be such a meaning hidden in it all. There may be and there may not.
On the choice of items he made, I think it would be wrong to disregard the fact that the uterus and the kidneys were the only organs he had shown an interset in bringing along with him before the Kelly slaying. This time over he had a choice of many items to "prop her up", if that was indeed his intention. If propping up was the aim, there were things like the liver or the pieces of flesh on the table that would have made more efficient propping facilities than the comparatively small kidneys and the likewise sizewise insignificant uterus. Maybe these two organs were the ones that had to be there, whereas the breast was chosen for size and height, doing the actual propping? Not that I can explain what possible feelings the combination of uterus and kidneys may have evoked within him ...

Though displaying clear, clear similarities to the other deeds, I think the Kelly murder differs significantly in other aspects. It is easy to see why many posters believe the Kelly deed to be of a more personal nature than the other slayings.
I don´t think that it all points to Marys killer being someone else than the man who killed Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes; he´s one and the same, alright, if you ask me. The special features of the Kelly murder, however, I believe may be attributed to Kelly being special to the killer in many a sense. Same thing, different story kind of thing.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi All,

It seems to me that there is about as much point in trying to analyse what was done in that room in Miller's Court as there is in trying to analyse anything said or done by someone when, for instance, they have clearly downed far too much alcohol for their own good.

Any method or motive may only apply to the period of 'drunkenness', during which the killer was intoxicated (perhaps in both senses, but not necessarily) by his latest murder opportunity and just went ahead and did things even he would not be able to comprehend or explain 24 hours later, when thrust back into the sober world and normal daily grind of his non-murderous activities.

I had a conversation like it the other day about a mutual friend:

Hubby: What X said last night was illogical because Y.

Me: Yes I know. But X was drunk at the time. Sober, they would know it was illogical and it would not enter their head to say it. It's an altered state, a different dimension. Dwelling on it or trying to analyse it is futile.

Hubby: And then X did Z, which made even less sense.

Me: As I said, X was drunk.

(I earned myself a filthy look at that point and the subject was dropped. )

Sam, if we take your approach to its logical conclusion we'd say that Jack removed Mary's heart just to get it 'out of the way'. In the end you have to ask: yes, but out of the way of what? To achieve what? At least the primitive animal usually has fairly obvious and primitive reasons for his primitive actions. Your approach may be simpler than the one that says Jack had a specific purpose in mind, or some pattern to make (some method in his madness if you will), but I can see little wrong with the trump card that says you have no more idea about the way his mind was working at the time than those with more complex theories. It's like thinking you can work out what a drunk was aiming to achieve when they were verbally abusing a loved one or wrecking a complete stranger's car. The man who was drunk on murder the night before could wake up next morning and not have the faintest clue himself if it had been everything or nothing to him at the time.

Asking him in prison, when he can no longer enter his self-imposed killing zone and lose himself inside it, whether he was attempting to arrange organs etc and why, or flinging them out of the way (and again why), would be almost as futile in my view as taking your answers from the crime scene itself and imagining you are right.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, if we take your approach to its logical conclusion we'd say that Jack removed Mary's heart just to get it 'out of the way'.

It's not the logical conclusion to my approach at all, Caz - if one assumes that he'd decided to remove the heart. Job done, therefore no need to move anything else out of the way.

[Sam Flynn]

Your approach may be simpler than the one that says Jack had a specific purpose in mind, but I can see little wrong with the trump card that says you have no more idea about the way his mind was working at the time than those with more complex theories

Even madmen have aims, however fleeting perhaps. Being mad makes you no less exempt from having to beat a path to your goal than a sane person. Just as a sane surgeon needs to shunt obstructing viscera out of the way before accessing the targeted organ, so too would a mad layman. The methods and tools differ, but the logistics are broadly the same.

What's more, it's possible to get a pretty good idea from the aftermath what went on. The surgeon leaves a long scar on the belly, so we know that there's a good possibility that there was something removed from the abdomen; the murderer removes the abdominal wall and we find bits of fascia and viscera obstructing the layers beneath (or above) placed to one side - lo and behold, we find that abdominal and thoracic organs have been cut out and/or taken away.

[Fisherman]

...and as we try to add his acts together, we are left with a killer who seemingly cherished the thought of owning a uterus, and therefore put his life on the line to achieve one. And when he did, it still was not enough - he felt compelled to do it again, taking the self same risks as he did the first time. Anyone could have seen him in Hanbury Street and/or Mitre Square.
In Miller´s court, he finally found the kind of venue where was not pressed for time in that fashion, and where it was not very credible that anyone would barge in in the middle of the night, leaving him lots of time to cut out that uterus. Which he did - only to leave it behind, under her head.
He took the heart instead. Other implications altogether.
One could argue that he perhaps was not all that keen on the uterus from the outset; that he would be pleased with any organ that came his way. But that was disproved in Miller´s court, where just about all organs came his way, only to be rejected and left behind in favour of an organ that was quite hard to get at.
So what was going on?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

One could argue that he perhaps was not all that keen on the uterus from the outset; that he would be pleased with any organ that came his way. But that was disproved in Miller´s court, where just about all organs came his way, only to be rejected and left behind in favour of an organ that was quite hard to get at. So what was going on?

Goals can change, Fish.

You eat sausages most days of the week, and suddenly you're given a choice between a plate of sausages and a plate of steak, chips and all the trimmings... the choice is yours. If you choose the steak option, does that mean that something "weird" was going on, or does it mean that you chose something more interesting and/or worthwhile, simply because you could do so on this occasion?

[c.d.]

Goals can change, Fish.

You eat sausages most days of the week, and suddenly you're given a choice between a plate of sausages and a plate of steak, chips and all the trimmings... the choice is yours. If you choose the steak option, does that mean that something "weird" was going on, or does it mean that you chose something more interesting and/or worthwhile, simply because you could do so on this occasion?

Can I get Spam with that? Spam Spam Spam Spam.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Sam asks:

"If you choose the steak option, does that mean that something "weird" was going on"

If you´re a vegetarian, it does!

Actually, Sam, apart from guesswork, there is no telling what prompted our man to go for a change. But I think it is fair to believe that a uterus had other implications to him that a sausage has to you and me (though I´m not familiar with your preferences in food).

It could have been the possibility offered to go for a brand new item to add to his list - and it could be that the heart held a special meaning to him. I´ll bet you a sausage we´ll never know.

The best,
Fisherman