2 ?'s For Ripperologists

[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!

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[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.

https://www.TheEnemyBlog.com

[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