2 ?'s For Ripperologists

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps I am mistaken, because I wouldnt have believed that people could live with their head stuck up their a** either,... and apparently thats incorrect.

True, Mike - the problem is that some people end up with their heads stuck up somebody else's arse instead; such as the arse that is "The Ripper definitely didn't kill Kelly".

[Cubitt]

Personally, if I took a knife and tried doing what he did, I'd fail. I just don't have the anatomical knowledge. I doubt most people do. If I handed you a knife and said, here is a corpse, go get me a kidney, I would bet a thousand dollars that you couldn't. Because how the hell would you know what was what?

Absolutely. And we're (presumably) now much better schooled in anatomical knowledge than your average Victorian Whitechapel resident. I guess we'd stand a much better chance of locating a kidney than a 19th Century east end layman.

Of course, maybe the killer wasn't specifically going for any bits in particular. He was just going in and pulling out items as he found them. As horrible as it is to contemplate, perhaps a womb or a kidney would be blindingly obvious and easy to remove, even to a layman. I literally have no idea.

(shudder).

[The Enemy Blog]

Why's it gotta be MY thread somebody doesn't want to post on?

In truth, I've given some detailed thought to the fifth murder as of late. There are many things I don't particularly LIKE about the Mary Kelly killing, in that she is so different from the others.

If Jack the Ripper were a typical, modern serial killer, this would be a real monkey wrench in his profile. Kelly is nearly twenty years younger than the other victims. The event takes place at a completely different location than the others.

There are many strange peculiarities that just don't seem to fit.

However, I happen to believe that Kelly was, in fact, a Ripper victim. Personally, if I took a knife and tried doing what he did, I'd fail. I just don't have the anatomical knowledge. I doubt most people do. If I handed you a knife and said, here is a corpse, go get me a kidney, I would bet a thousand dollars that you couldn't. Because how the hell would you know what was what?

Something WAS very different about Mary Kelly, in order for her to BECOME a Ripper victim, but sadly, the reasons are lost to history.

Upon reflection my remarks were overly harsh in response to points only made on this thread, in this particular conversation,... they were reflective of cumulative disappointments in the some of the recent arguments placed before the members. My apologies.

I will not address any further posts directed towards me on this thread though, I am through here.

Regards.

Perhaps I am mistaken, because I wouldnt have believed that people could live with their head stuck up their a** either,... and apparently thats incorrect.

Bray and whinny all you like, doesnt change the evidence at all....and by evidence I mean the type that actually exists, not the various opinions or impressions of individuals posting. Debating the existence of the obvious has lost its lustre, so believe what you want, write what you want, offer opinions with nothing but imagination as a foundation.....I wont say another word.

The nice thing for you is, that you will always end up back in a safety zone,...that of one killer of 5 women without any evidence pointing to anyone, and of guesses and opinions that have never been proven in 120 years.

Stay the course, by all means, just because you espouse ideas that have never been workable is no reason to quit now.

In conclusion.....there is no proof that there was a "Ripper" that killed 5 women at all, there is no proof that this man killed Mary Kelly, and there is no proof that anything that found its way to a place in Marys room wasnt placed there deliberately.

But those are just the facts, dont let them stop ya. They havent yet.

Cheers.

[Jeff Leahy]

...
In short, the organs and flesh were placed precisely where one might have expected him to have found them - if put there by someone whose entire focus was on mutilating and excavating the corpse as quickly and efficiently as possible. Nothing "superfluous" at all, apart from the sheer extent of the damage. To this extent, Kelly's murder was no different than any other in the series.

This really is a bastard son of a bitch conclusion. However the more you consider it, the more you have to admit the possiblity...

A warning note however, You must consider the 'murders' mind set as a whole, and his actions as a whole. Jack is as one with his crime (and thus end product) It is very difficult to seperate Jack's actions, his methodolgy and his purpose, from what we see, they were as one..

But painful though it is to admit, Ally and Sams conclusions about the end product being a 'creation of purpose' do make some sense, and must be given serious consideration.

Pirate

[The Enemy Blog]

Wow. What an excellent discussion. My most sincere, heartfelt thanks to everyone for giving my questions such well-thought out responses.

I look forward to participating in future discussions on the board.

www.TheEnemyBlog.com

[Ally]

Hi Ally,


For example, if the draping of the arm was to get something from the floor there, or get at the outside of her left thigh...why isnt there cuts to the outside of that thigh, and why wasnt a note made of some unusual stain patterns on the floor by the bed? If he doesnt do anything he doesnt need to do, then why is the midsection hollowed out when he only takes the heart? Why does he slash her face beyond recognition....what purpose did that have, aside from one that this killer felt was important.

The only way I can makes sure that the records are accurately reflected these days Ally is to be a d*** about making the point that there needs to be evidence, as well as supposition, in play.

Ive just made it clear that to assume any position here one must accept that this crime scene reveals acts that have no known meaning, they reflect changes in his known pattern, and they have nothing to do with killing, cutting or extracting. If that means "jack" to you, literally and figuratively, so be it....

Best regards.

Your definition of "needed" actions is irrelevant. We don't know what jack needed to do. He could have wiped his nose because it itched and you would say that's superfluous because it wasn't related to "killing, cutting or extracting". There is not ANYTHING on this planet that one can do without doing something "superfluous by that standard. If you try to relate meaning to every single action as if everything is deliberate in attempt to read some deeper meaning into it, you would soon find meaning in the most ridiculous things.

I am sure there was blood on the floor. He slopped organs off the bed onto the table. He would have left the bed at some point. If he would have dripped blood picking something off the floor, then he would have dripped blood getting off the bed. So the absence of specific comments on floor bloodstains or whatever you think should be there says nothing at all.

As for the midsection being hollowed out...that is obviously something he "needed" to do or wanted to do. Because you want to limit him to pure actions of excise, cut and extract as "needed" actions, doesn't make it so. We don't really know what he "needed" to do, in order to satisfy himself.

But this is specifically about whether he deliberately arranged her as she was. Arranged implies specific effect was intended. And there is NOTHING in that scene that shows there was specific effect intended in how she was laid out.

God I just love pompous blanket statements that sound like they can't possibly be argued with.

Define superfluous. Now tell me how you think you can judge what is and is not superfluous in that crime scene when you weren't there, didn't see anything and don't know what happened.

The arm?? The arm is dangling down the bed or off the bed. It's blocking something he's dropped or wants access to. He tosses it into her abdomen out of the way of whatever he is attempting to get access to. Or he was moving her to get at something on her right side and tossed her arm over her chest to provide him with an easier way of moving her over so her arm didn't get trapped beneath her and impede him.

There are several dozen explanations for everything that don't point to superfluous posing considering you don't actually know what went on in that room or what the killer was doing.

Hi Ally,

Conversely, dont I just love it when the hard evidence of such acts are merely dismissed.

I am using the word to convey "nonessential", or "extraneous" acts. Like just stripping a thigh or two, or placing organs by her feet....but I left those out because "just cutting" might be one of his objectives, and in some strange way perhaps some of those placements were easy locations to just plop things.

Its one that you and others seem to believe, his desire for merely goaless cutting...although difficult to see or prove within the first 4 victims....and the only outdoor murder that had such indulgences took perhaps less than 5 or 6 minutes to complete...hardly a period of "wallowing" available there.

The argument that the additional damage that he did to Mary Kelly is a result of his finally being able to kill indoors and be self indulgent is one possible answer...so is my suggestion that the scene suggests acts that were only to change the position of the deceased's body, neither being changes that would increase access to her corpse, or offer him access to another part of her anatomy.

For example, if the draping of the arm was to get something from the floor there, or get at the outside of her left thigh...why isnt there cuts to the outside of that thigh, and why wasnt a note made of some unusual stain patterns on the floor by the bed? If he doesnt do anything he doesnt need to do, then why is the midsection hollowed out when he only takes the heart? Why does he slash her face beyond recognition....what purpose did that have, aside from one that this killer felt was important.

The only way I can makes sure that the records are accurately reflected these days Ally is to be a d*** about making the point that there needs to be evidence, as well as supposition, in play.

Ive just made it clear that to assume any position here one must accept that this crime scene reveals acts that have no known meaning, they reflect changes in his known pattern, and they have nothing to do with killing, cutting or extracting. If that means "jack" to you, literally and figuratively, so be it....

Best regards.

[Ally]

God I just love pompous blanket statements that sound like they can't possibly be argued with.

Define superfluous. Now tell me how you think you can judge what is and is not superfluous in that crime scene when you weren't there, didn't see anything and don't know what happened.

The arm?? The arm is dangling down the bed or off the bed. It's blocking something he's dropped or wants access to. He tosses it into her abdomen out of the way of whatever he is attempting to get access to. Or he was moving her to get at something on her right side and tossed her arm over her chest to provide him with an easier way of moving her over so her arm didn't get trapped beneath her and impede him.

There are several dozen explanations for everything that don't point to superfluous posing considering you don't actually know what went on in that room or what the killer was doing.

Thats the beauty and ugliness of this study in a nutshell, because in Mary Kellys case, there are at least two actions that fit into what Im suggesting.

How does a breast fall under a head?
Why does he put her arm over an empty midsection, when clearly it was not there when he was mutilating her in that region?

Neither act is a natural location for it to come to rest in, therefore they are almost certainly something that was deliberate, and neither has any connection with killing, opening, or extracting.

I left one thread when the suppositions were too baseless, and puposefully came to one that should be based on evidence. With that in mind, there are 2 actions at least that fit into what Ive suggested. Which means 2 deliberate acts that fit a "staging" a scene conclusion.

If you want to suggest that the rest were just randomly occurring phenomenon, that is certainly your right. But just dont claim that there were no deliberate superfluous actions in evidence in that room please....its flat out incorrect.

Best regards all.

[Ally]

Gareth,

Exactly, which is why I don't think it was posed. There were a heck of a lot more shocking and grotesque ways that it could have been posed if that was the killers aim.. I doubt impact or 'intent' was really there. I see a guy playing with his toys, but not for impact on others, which is how I read the word "arrange". With deliberate intent.

If Mary was killed by a copycat, he certainly engaged in overkill (no pun intended). A slice to the throat, cut open the abdomen and remove some organs. That would make it a copycat crime. The smart thing then would be to leave the scene immediately but that is not what the killer did. Was it really necessary to remove the flesh from her leg? Hadn't the point been already made? That was an unneccessary risk. Far from being a copycat, I think it was more of a kid in a candy store with unlimited money.

c.d.

Certainly one train of thought cd. But I submit that the reason we might see "overkill", is because he was ensuring that the "monster" would be the only reasonable suspect.

But as you illustrate, just slicing the throat after they were semi or unconscious, opening the women and taking something from inside them would have sufficed as a disguise for a Ripper signature. That was his sequence up until Mary anyway.

So why the breast under the head, why the arm back over an empty midsection, why strip thighs of flesh, ...you seem to embrace that "glut" indulgence philosophy due to time and privacy available...I think its due to a killer who had no idea why these types of things were done by Jack to the prior women in the first place.

They lack logical meaning in Millers Court, because they have no purpose in killing, opening, or extracting anything. So if they are symbolic actions,....thats new, if they are sheer self-indulgence...thats new, and if they are representative of some indecision...like only partially stripping both thighs, then thats new as well.

And in very signifigant way, his attack by using the knife before she is even subdued, is the most important difference I believe.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

I do think that there is some potential foundation for a case of attempts to mirror previous victims crime scenes as relates to the mutilations, but in this case, lacking the obvious motives for doing so...as in placing the intestines as far away from Annies abdomen as he could reach while still crouching or kneeling.

... the killer hoiked Kelly's intestines over onto the bed on the right hand side of her body, Mike - an eminently sensible ergonomic act on his part. If he'd been into "placement", he easily had the opportunity to strew the organs all over the room (as some fictitious accounts would have us believe), but he didn't. Everything was on the bed, or on the bedside table.

In short, the organs and flesh were placed precisely where one might have expected him to have found them - if put there by someone whose entire focus was on mutilating and excavating the corpse as quickly and efficiently as possible. Nothing "superfluous" at all, apart from the sheer extent of the damage. To this extent, Kelly's murder was no different than any other in the series.

Yes, but it was not just her breast that was "under her head" it was also some viscera as well, her uterus and something else I can't be bothered to look up right now, if I am not mistaken. And her other breast ended up down by her right foot. So in my view of what happened (pure speculation of course and no more factual than any other surmise) Mary was originally angled on the bed with her head back towards the corner, her legs off the bed (kind of diagonal if you understand me). He mutilates the abdomen, cuts of her right breast, and it goes to the killer's left, then her left breast and it goes right to his right (ending up where her "pillow/head area" would naturally be, same with the abdomen viscera). Then he decides to get in and do the legs, more of the abdomen, etc, he pulls her around and fully onto the bed to continue the assault and in the process her head ends up on the removed organs and the right breast is now by where her foot is.

So while he does manipulate the body, I don't see it so much as posing for the sake of posing. I see that scenario as being more logical than he lifts her head, puts a breast under it, lifts her head puts the uterus under her, lifts her head, puts the ...etc.

But again, all just my imagination of what occurred.

Hi Ally,

Belated Happy Holidays to you and yours, hope they were great.

Thats as reasonable any as anything else on the table, I agree, but there are things like the draping of her left arm back over her empty midsection that lead me to speculate that there may be deliberate acts within those seemingly random ones.

I do think that there is some potential foundation for a case of attempts to mirror previous victims crime scenes as relates to the mutilations, but in this case, lacking the obvious motives for doing so...as in placing the intestines as far away from Annies abdomen as he could reach while still crouching or kneeling.

Aside from some stabs and cuts that served no purpose in terms of opening the women or extracting any biological materials on the other 3 of 4 victims, the bulk of their injuries can be understood in a logical manner... assuming the goal was to open the women and take something from within them. Even cuts like the ones made on Kates face were an anomaly until Mary Kelly. But in Marys case, we can see that for no logical motive other than perhaps satisfying his urges or compulsions, he strips Marys thighs of flesh, one completely.

I think theres a "pattern" there....superfluous actions, that is different from the previous kills attributed to the Ripper, my take anyway. But maybe its just because he could take more time indoors, if The Ripper.

Best regards Ally.