2 ?'s For Ripperologists

[c.d.]

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.

[Ally]

A breast under Marys head isnt in keeping with that philosophy, nor is the fact that some items removed he just leaves beside the body...if he wanted them out of the way, like with the larger mass seen on the table by her bed, he could do the same with other bits.

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 B,

Im not a Ripperologist, but I am an avid student...and those are two good questions for a first post. Problem is, there are no answers to give you that are already "accepted" by mainstream Ripperologists.

The suggestion of a "Burke and Hare" scenario regarding the organ theft, taking organs to sell to medical universities and hospitals, has always been a weak motivating factor, due to the fact that you dont need to kill a woman to get access to anything that was taken. There are the stories, one not refuted, that an American Doctor sought to purchase uteri from Teaching Hospitals a year before the killings, offering 20 L for a specimen. Big money in those days. But he only gets a single intact uterus, so that doesnt explain the other 4 victims...if he killed the Canonical Five by himself.

On the organs, I would disagree with Ally here, because a case can be made for the placement of organs on the outdoors kills as being one of neccesity, he needs access to the organs he wants, or the "area", so he places intestines above the shoulders of a victim to gain ease of access.

A breast under Marys head isnt in keeping with that philosophy, nor is the fact that some items removed he just leaves beside the body...if he wanted them out of the way, like with the larger mass seen on the table by her bed, he could do the same with other bits.

But when you find just one piece of flesh placed in a position that it would not likely fall into, or be the most convenient for it to be just "out of the way", you may have the start of a case for "staging" that crime scene.

Something I should add, that a copycat killer would do.

Welcome again B, cheers.

[Ally]

I think if you could answer why, you'd have already answered who. I think modern profiling is flawed and faulty enough as it is, without trying to apply their blanket generalizations to the psychologies of people who lived over a hundred years ago.

Richard chase removed organs from one of his victims, but he appears to just be a garden variety psychopath. Is there an actual motive there or just a nutjob having his kind of fun.

Until you know the individual, you can't guess why they do what they do. People aren't paint by numbers kits, in my opinion.

As for why Mary Kelly was " arranged" like that, I don't think there was any real arrangement other than easy access for the hack and slash.

Welcome to the site. I've perused your blog on occasion.

[The Enemy Blog]

Hello everybody. I'm new to the forums (very new), but have made extensive use o the casebook for about a year now. If any site administrators see this, you guys are absolutely hands-down one of the best.

I have two questions about the Jack the Ripper incidents. I really can't find a good plausible explanation for two things that are driving me nuts.

One: WHY did Jack remove internal organs from his victims? Is there any modern forensic profile discussing why he did it? Are there any "experts" who have put forward a good guess?

Two: WHY did Jack arrange Mary Kelly's remains the way that he did? Same questions follow up questions for number one, really.

If you know ANY literature talking about one of the above items, I beg you, I implore you, I beseech you, let me know what they are.

If you have ANY ideas about the subject, or just damn good guesses, please let me know what they are.

My name is B. I write The Enemy Blog (www.TheEnemyBlog.com). Thanks!