Posing

[Sam Flynn]

Whilst looking for that just found out that a Pollywog is.................... a tadpole!!!!

Also porwigle, porriwiggle, purwiggy, pollywiggle, pollywoggle, poolwig, pollywig.

From Middle English "poll" (meaning "head") and "woggle" (meaning "wiggle").

[The Good Michael]

Whilst looking for that just found out that a Pollywog is.................... a tadpole!!!!

Ah shucks, Suzi, any Minnesota kid could have told you that.

Mike

[perrymason]

Now that we can see that the words definitions allow for the statement that parts of Mary were indeed "posed", put or placed, then we can assess whether that in and of itself fairly categorizes the scene that faced the first people in the room, and the killer while he worked.

Were the things placed so he could more easily do his work....some were, like the table viscera,...were the things placed to set up some kind of staged scene for the person who finds her,... theres no evidence that locks that idea up, but it could be....did he place things for his own sake of aesthetics or scenery....maybe.

There is no clear answer as to why,.....we can only arrive at a logical conclusion that it was in fact done.

When we can answer why someone would strip all flesh off only one of 2 thighs, and why someone would slash randomly at a face, we may get some answers for the posing.

Cheers all.

[Mitch Rowe]

Just a small correction Mike.. If you look closely at MJK3 you can see the flesh was stripped from the inside of the left thigh as well. I do agree however that the bodies were posed in some manner.

[The Good Michael]

I must object to the use of the word "pose" and the inference it projects. Of course to pose means to position something and that is fine and correct here. But the use of it to mean to display someone's remains is at best a point of argument and in my mind, untenable. Was the body moved a bit and arms and legs repositioned for access? Quite probably so. Was the body positioned after all work was done for purposes of effect? Unknown and indefensible.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mitch Rowe]

I would say the Gainesville Killer posed his victims. I believe he admitted he did. This includes the fact that he placed one victims head on a shelf for police to see upon entering the building. However when I compare the description of ACs body position to MJKs body position in the photos I would conclude that they are too similar to not have been posed in that manner. One could argue that they were the result of JTRs work but even then I wouldnt agree. Im going to have to go with the posing scenario.

[perrymason]

Just a small correction Mike.. If you look closely at MJK3 you can see the flesh was stripped from the inside of the left thigh as well. I do agree however that the bodies were posed in some manner.

Hi Mitch,

You missed my wording on that old sport....."why someone would strip all flesh off only one of 2 thighs".

And Mike....your objection is noted and dismissed pal......"to put or place" is among "posing's'" definitions. Things were certainly put or placed about Mary and the room.

All the best chaps.

[sparta68]

I think the first question to ask is "if" they were laid out how were they laid out. Miss Marple describes this very well in a post three up from this one. Jack wanted who ever to see them to be shocked, but not so much by the killing though. He wanted who ever looked on the bodies to feel shame, guilt. I think if MM is correct Uncle Jack wanted men in paticular to feel these emotions and one last one....disgust...not disgust at the crime, but disgust at the women. That they were "whores" who could have this done to them probably was meant to demean them and make them look lesser.

Yet I am not sure if all the victims were done like this and if not why? Certianly Mary Kelly was special to say the least, but why? I don't think her skirt was hiked up was it?

[The Good Michael]

And Mike....your objection is noted and dismissed pal......"to put or place" is among "posing's'" definitions. Things were certainly put or placed about Mary and the room.

I only objected to the inference of what "posing" might mean. I'm sitting at my computer in a hunched over position. To my left I have an empty bowl that once contained salsa. To my right is a bag of chips that were dipped in salsa until the bowl was empty (note to self: get a bigger bowl).
At arm's length is an empty can of Tropicana. I can just reach it with my fingertips. I placed it where it resides because it was in my way. According to your definition, there has been some posing going on near my computer. That includes the position of my body and where the items discussed earlier had been left. The inference that is suggested by your description or concept of Kelly's room is some sort of ritualistic positioning. I would suggest that my situation, in front of my computer, has no conscious ritualism attached to it. I would also suggest that what I have done naturally, is akin to what the ripper did.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Things were certainly put or placed about Mary and the room.

...about Mary's body, the nearby bedside table, and nowhere else. Had the killer been bent on creating a "ritualistic tableau", he certainly restricted himself to a minimalist canvas.

[perrymason]

Sam and Mike......as youve Im sure noted, I said posts ago that I am not interpreting what the posing is signifying....if anything. My point is that we cannot escape the fact that things were placed or put, as you say Sam, on the table or around or under Marys extremities. That falls under "posed" based on its definition.

The viscera on the table doesnt seem ritualistically posed to me either, I just think he had to plunk it somewhere, but the uterus and breast under her head do not fall under the heading of or signify "the most convenient spot",.....as Mikes chips and pop analogy was suggesting.

Best regards chaps

[Sam Flynn]

The viscera on the table doesnt seem ritualistically posed to me either, I just think he had to plunk it somewhere

Indeed, Mike - so that's roughly 90-something percent of the organs "not posed", then. We still haven't accounted for the definite "non-posing" of Kelly's other breast, which ended up further down the bed, below where the killer had dumped her liver. Speaking of which, why put Kelly's piddly little kidneys under her head, when the liver would have offered a far better "cushion" on which to support the killer's putative macabre montage?

but the uterus and breast under her head do not fall under the heading of or signify "the most convenient spot"...

Indeed not, but we don't know the precise configuration, nor the sequence of events (or "motivation") that led to them being placed there. For all we know, they might have slopped off the top of the pile of viscera on the table and onto the floor, only for the killer to pick them up and chuck them onto the pillow just before he left. The possibility that her head might have "lolled over" to cover them has already been mooted, and it's a realistic possibility too.

[Victor]

Speaking of which, why put Kelly's piddly little kidneys under her head, when the liver would have offered a far better "cushion" on which to support the killer's putative macabre montage?

Hi Sam,

Why stop at the liver? There's that big "bolster" or whatever on the end of the table. Or the chair in the room could have been placed facing the window or door making a much more gruesome sight.

KR,
Vic.

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm opposed to this posing stuff.
Another murder case from the same time frame that I'm looking at right now raises some interesting points in this regard. In that the killer actually hides body parts removed from one part of the body and then places them deep within the body, only later to be discovered at post mortem.
It strikes me that such perverse and unreasonable behaviour can not claim to any logic or motive that we might even begin to understand, and that to categorise such behaviour is both dangerous and misleading.
Much rather than ascribing motives like 'posing' or even 'hiding' to a killer I think we should be far more broad minded in this regard, and simply admit that we are clueless in the hands of a boy who would tinker with the inner workings of a universe that he failed to understand... just like us.

[perrymason]

I'm opposed to this posing stuff.
Another murder case from the same time frame that I'm looking at right now raises some interesting points in this regard. In that the killer actually hides body parts removed from one part of the body and then places them deep within the body, only later to be discovered at post mortem.
It strikes me that such perverse and unreasonable behaviour can not claim to any logic or motive that we might even begin to understand, and that to categorise such behaviour is both dangerous and misleading.
Much rather than ascribing motives like 'posing' or even 'hiding' to a killer I think we should be far more broad minded in this regard, and simply admit that we are clueless in the hands of a boy who would tinker with the inner workings of a universe that he failed to understand... just like us.

Hi AP,

The way I look at this issue, we have no choice but to accept that by its very definition, the word "posed" is applicable to some of the biological artifacts found around Mary.

I agree that the meaning if done for some purpose is something that only the twisted little mind in room 13 might understand, but it is significant in Ripper terms.

The only biological artifact at any Canonical murder other than Marys that was placed or "posed" in a specific location not easily explained, is Kates 2 foot colon section between her arm and body....and thats not really a dramatic case like a breast under a head is.

The more activity that we can easily identify in that murder scene that has nothing in common with prior Canonicals, the stronger the evidence that can be used to argue against her inclusion.

I think "posing" anything....is just such a situation.

The guy in room 13 was quite obviously farting around....he wasnt there just to kill, cut free and run. Like Annies killer was.

Cheers AP