If a doctor was responsible for the murders.......................

[Natasha]

Just returning to the original theme of the thread for a moment - there was no need for doctors to murder to obtain body parts to study. Bodies were readily available for research. Additionally, it would be illegal and unethical to say the least.

I agree with other posters that there is a strong element of anger in the killings. The killer, in my opinion, would have also possessed a strong degree of nerve to carry out the atrocities in the time and manner that he did, particularly in the case of Chapman and Eddowes. This, for me, rules out the 'wandering lunatic' or 'tortured individual' suspects. I would bet that if the Ripper had friends or family, they had no idea what he was up to.

Hi Limehouse,

I agree that if a Dr did do it, then the question of the Hippocratic Oath would be compromised. I have mentioned in this thread that if a medical student had done this, then perhaps (s)he may have been a poor student interested in the medical field. I suspect people of a lower class could not have gained employment within an industry above their class. So having said that, that would mean this person wouldn't have access to organs etc and may not have been part of a medical school or wasn't working in the medical field. I am not 100% on this theory, it's just a suggestion.

I agree that a wandering lunatic was not responsible for these crimes as they would have been caught. These people are not organised. cannot separate reality from fantasy and would have had a hard time concealing this. Where else the ripper was organised, and has not been caught for these crimes. I'm not ruling out mental health issues (it's obvious something wasn't right with him) but I don't think the classic schizophrenia, for example features as the drive behind the ripper's murder spree.

The ripper was indeed a brazen risk taker, and I do think that perhaps his family/friends would never have guessed that he was involved in these crimes.

[Limehouse]

Could you explain your reasoning for this? I'm not sure why that would preclude those particular types of suspect. You could easily flip your point around and argue that only a madman would've risked targeting his victims in public places when a local bobby was never too far away.

Hi Harry,

I am perfectly certain that the killer was deranged. However, I would rule out the type of suspect who wandered about muttering to himself and openly picking food out of the gutter simply because I do not think this type of person would be able to carry out this type of killing in the kind-of controlled fashion that he did. What I mean by this is the swift execution of the act followed by escape.

As for the 'tortured individual' (what I mean by that I suppose is the way that Druitt is described or the 'sick vet/medical student)) I just think that this is a melodramatic image of the killer conjured up by the Victorian imagination to 'excuse' what might have been an upper class or upper middle class killer.

I'm probably not making any sense at all but to put it simply, I see JtR as someone rather like Peter Sutcliffe. That is, a local man who knew the area well, who blended into the background most of the time and who possessed a certain degree of supressed anger that could be directed quite efficiently towards the destruction of an individual. The only real problem with this is, of course, that Sutcliffe carried his atrocities over a much longer period of time and sometimes varied his MO.

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,

MK known to ripper: I know where you're coming from, Natasha, but I'd object that, although it might very much look that way especially after one asks oneself 'why' and connects it with hate, which we ourselves would normally direct at a person known to us, be it personally or by means of face, information, etc, I'd object that there is no other indication for this in the injuries other than what our emotions lead us to. It CAN very well be so, but it really needn't. So it's not that the amount, and nature, of the injuries indicate that victim and killer knew each other, it merely SEEMS that they indicate - and to you more than to me [pls excuse the capital letters, the italics here are a bit moody at times].
Keep in mind that before Kelly one could call the mutilations on Eddowes the most ghastly - were they not numerous and ghastly enough to make the same assumption? There are other explanation models for this, no less implying than following from the severity of mutilations that victim and perp knew each other.

silent entry: again, it MAY be she knew him and let him in. But given her part time occupation we also have to consider that she'd let in a complete stranger. If she let in anyone at all, that is.

noise: But a noise was heard, but 2 ear-witnesses at approx. the same time, a cry 'murder!'
I don't know enough about the exact nature of acoustics at Miller's Court back then, since it was poor housing one should think that people would hear a lot. That said, houses were not quite as easy for eavesdropping as cheap modern housing today. More importantly, both ear-witnesses didn't act on what they heard, stating that this sort of thing was to be heard often. Ofc we don't know whether what they heard was the voice of Mary Kelly. There is a good chance, though, as with a murder really happening. More to the point, if 2 people are not reacting on a shout of 'murder!' - what else would people ignore in terms of noise?

not buying opening means: I suppose such a thing could have in principle been confirmed even after the door was broken down - it depends on the state of the broken down door. But yes, it's indeed an important issue. If Barnett was telling the truth it would explain everything about it, however. I know locks that behave in this way myself.

scared of man: you appear to be conscious about the contradictions. Mainly we all would need more information, and this could only be coming from Barnett. You still need to make your case about Kelly possibly knowing her murderer... Also, why do you think he didn't reside in the East End?

heart-symbolism: the heart readily invites interpretation. Which is precisely why one should be careful with such. On the other hand, if you interpret it this way, why not the killer also? So I take your point. It's not a given, mind you.

staging/arm: that is if he was staging anything at all. I've read other posts expressing similar notions. Most of how all victims were positioned exhibit nothing else with certainty above them lying as one would expect, with the mutilations in mind. In Kelly's case much more was done, and with some deliberation, it seems. The decision has to be about whether anything was done with a later audience in mind or not [this also goes for the entrails placed over the shoulders with previous victims]. It's a heavy decision to make, as either possibility results in 2 very different pictures as motivation is concerned.
Do the details have meaning? For sure. Is it meaning to the perpetrator alone, or is it addressed meaning?
So, was there a message at all? It might look that way. It WILL look that way, to anyone encountering, but we do take things personally in this way. We read it, into it. And it might be difficult to think the killer wasn't thinking about those finding the scene. And yet it very well might be so.

placing: again, your observations and ideas from them revolve around a very practical approach... I'm getting at something here...
It's a bit like, 'if I was the killer, if I'd have been in that room, I would...'
Nononono - if you were in that room you'd be having tea with Mary. You wouldn't murder her in the first place. What you're doing is something very, very sane: you look at it and you work on a decision of what would make sense to you. As you said:
'Reasoning: I couldn’t definitely say what the ripper was thinking, I can only make an assumption using the evidence, and piecing everything together as I see it.'
Neither can I, definitely say what he was thinking. But the 'as you see it' might depend on how you look in the first place. It's why I was asking with such an emphasis about the handling. Take a step back and look at Mary's room again -
whatever the motive, who ever was there - doesn't it look monstrous to you, doesn't it look insane.
I suggest that the practical point of view, of 'this has been done because it makes sense this or that way', seen by the healthy, purely functional and practical eye of a sane, healthy person might not be enough to explain what might very well be what it looks like: a painting painted by insanity. Not without sense. But a sense that doesn't follow the same logic, the same [I]motivation[I].
I kept harking on the handling, because I want to suggest that there was more to it than mere practicality, i.e. handling as a means [taking the organ, transferring it, placing it somewhere] - that the handling itself was of importance to him, and so was the placing, at least of what was found underneath Kelly's head.

I'll open a new thread in a bit that deals with this question, and others.
I'll attach a bit of a musing about the whole question of what the word 'pathological' might mean in this context, don't know what I'll call the threat yet, just look out for the so far only thread by me if you're interested.
It'll also be about some of the approaches here on the board, basically about whether or not we have access to something so different and perhaps 'incomprehensible' - I noticed that more often this approach is present: what is the most logical to ME. In other words, how much sense can I drain from what we call insanity by approaching those question with the logic of sanity.

Hi Sepiae

You make some very good points. In particular approaching the scene from a different angle, rather then seeing it through sane eyes. I guess the best way would be to analyze other serial killers.

Using your theory that maybe the killer wasn’t known to Kelly. Could it be possible that someone was setting Barnett up? Maybe to make the murder look like that of a crime of passion. They may have been mad at him for something

Noise, oh murder: the neighbour's couldn’t decipher weather the noise came from inside, rather that it came from outside, so I decided to deliberately leave that out. I started a thread on the subject of 'oh murder', questioning why someone who was about to get murdered would shout this out, rather then shout out an expletive. A few weeks after I posted that thread I came across a court case where the victim (case has nothing to do with JTR) had shouted 'oh murder' and 'help' and this made me think that it could be quite possible that the scream came from Kelly. The neighbours took no action so I guess they have heard all this before and believing it to be of no importance. What other things would have been ignored? Good question. If Kelly was in the habit of bringing men home, then I guess the neighbours, especially Prater, would rather block out hearing things of a sexual nature.

Scared of a man: I feel that if Kelly feared someone she wouldn’t be hanging around in an area where this man resided, I suspect she would have moved to put distance between her and this man. The fact that other women were being murdered makes me wonder why Kelly wouldn’t have made a connection with this man she was scared of and the murders. Having said that I guess he couldn't have been perceived as a threat to her life, or maybe Barnett was lying, or if Kelly did tell Barnett, she may have been lying.

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

available bodies: very good point indeed.

'possessed a strong degree of nerve to carry out the atrocities in the time and manner that he did (...)rules out the 'wandering lunatic' ': or perhaps the 'choice' was between the priorities of security or doing what he wanted/needed to, the latter being the winning one. I would also submit that the strong nerves might not have been something like 'boldness' as suggested sometimes; rather that the man perhaps wasn't at all careful.
the ruled-out wandering lunatic: yes, if we see it as literally someone wandering about with froth before his mouth. Not if he was able to maintain facade - as happens with the 'organised serial murderer'. Not if, perhaps, the drive and it's satisfaction was exactly the thing that enabled the facade of a more or less normal life - as long as it was satisfied.
Read Martin Fido's reply to the objections against 'his' suspect 'David Cohen', which were essentially what you say:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cohen.html

It concerns the breakdown of control.

deviation from original theme: yes, sorry, happens at times with such a complex subject matter, but yes, one should return to the original question of a thread

Hi Sepiae,

Yes, generally I agree. His drive may well have been stronger than his sense of security. Agree totally about him probably being an 'organised' serial killer' . Thanks for the link. I'll certainly follow it up.

Nice exchanging views with you.

Limehouse

[Harry D]

The killer, in my opinion, would have also possessed a strong degree of nerve to carry out the atrocities in the time and manner that he did, particularly in the case of Chapman and Eddowes. This, for me, rules out the 'wandering lunatic' or 'tortured individual' suspects. .

Could you explain your reasoning for this? I'm not sure why that would preclude those particular types of suspect. You could easily flip your point around and argue that only a madman would've risked targeting his victims in public places when a local bobby was never too far away.

[sepiae]

Just returning to the original theme of the thread for a moment - there was no need for doctors to murder to obtain body parts to study. Bodies were readily available for research. Additionally, it would be illegal and unethical to say the least.

I agree with other posters that there is a strong element of anger in the killings. The killer, in my opinion, would have also possessed a strong degree of nerve to carry out the atrocities in the time and manner that he did, particularly in the case of Chapman and Eddowes. This, for me, rules out the 'wandering lunatic' or 'tortured individual' suspects. I would bet that if the Ripper had friends or family, they had no idea what he was up to.

Hi Limehouse,

available bodies: very good point indeed.

'possessed a strong degree of nerve to carry out the atrocities in the time and manner that he did (...)rules out the 'wandering lunatic' ': or perhaps the 'choice' was between the priorities of security or doing what he wanted/needed to, the latter being the winning one. I would also submit that the strong nerves might not have been something like 'boldness' as suggested sometimes; rather that the man perhaps wasn't at all careful.
the ruled-out wandering lunatic: yes, if we see it as literally someone wandering about with froth before his mouth. Not if he was able to maintain facade - as happens with the 'organised serial murderer'. Not if, perhaps, the drive and it's satisfaction was exactly the thing that enabled the facade of a more or less normal life - as long as it was satisfied.
Read Martin Fido's reply to the objections against 'his' suspect 'David Cohen', which were essentially what you say:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cohen.html

It concerns the breakdown of control.

deviation from original theme: yes, sorry, happens at times with such a complex subject matter, but yes, one should return to the original question of a thread

[Limehouse]

Hi All

I just thought if a Dr was responsible for the murders, why would he commit the crimes?

A theory about the organ s. As I understand, endoctrine glands the thyroid, pancress, ovaries and adrenal glands (situated above the kidney) were used for transplantation in the 1880s. Could this be a possible reason for attacking some of these specfic areas on the victims bodies? It could exlplain the 'careful' extraction of the kidney on Eddowes and the missing reproductive organs on some of the other victims.

Or maybe these organs were targeted so the Dr s could better understand certain medical conditions. After all the 1800s was the start of medical advances

Just returning to the original theme of the thread for a moment - there was no need for doctors to murder to obtain body parts to study. Bodies were readily available for research. Additionally, it would be illegal and unethical to say the least.

I agree with other posters that there is a strong element of anger in the killings. The killer, in my opinion, would have also possessed a strong degree of nerve to carry out the atrocities in the time and manner that he did, particularly in the case of Chapman and Eddowes. This, for me, rules out the 'wandering lunatic' or 'tortured individual' suspects. I would bet that if the Ripper had friends or family, they had no idea what he was up to.

[sepiae]

p.s.
I just opened the thread, it's called
'Pathological Issues: Is It Perhaps What It Looks Like?'

[sepiae]

lots

In my opinion I believe MJK was known to the ripper, the amount of injuries inflicted upon her indicated this. The killer was able to gain entrance to the room without the neighbours hearing anything. If she was awake when the killer entered the room then why was there absolutely no noise, no exclamation of surprise upon seeing someone come into the room (...)
I don’t buy the idea that by reaching through the window the door could be open (...)
The heart being missing suggest a personal attachment to the victim, not just someone who had randomly met her.
Barnett said Kelly was scared of a man, I feel this was not in reference to the ripper, though that being said she may have personally known the ripper and after what he had done feared for her safety, but then again if that was the case would she not have fled London. This notion of knowing the ripper feeds into my ‘murder what murder’ post. To add, if she was scared of a man, then I think this man didn't reside in London, or at least anywhere near the east end.

Position of arm: as I said it could have something to do with the ripper thinking Kelly was pregnant or it could just mean the killer was trying to stage the body maybe for practical reasons perhaps so the body didn’t fall. Thinking about it now the position of the body shows us that perhaps the killer was particular and fixated on detail and the presentation of this murder. It has been said that maybe the killer didn’t want to see the faces of the victims and had turned the head to the side. Now I have said before that maybe the partition was the way in and out of the room.

With the body being 'staged' what was the message he was sending out?

Absence of the heart suggests the organ has meaning to the killer. Could it be linked to love, maybe. Or maybe the killer took the heart as a way of calling Kelly a heartless woman (...)

Handling of organs: the spleen was placed on the left side, now the spleen is located on the left hand side, so the placing of that organ I don't think is important. The kidneys, uterus and breast being placed in an unusual place is something that intrigues me. All I can think is that the killer had put Kelly in a sitting position for what reason I don't know, and had threw the kidneys etc not placed them, and Kelly being put back down again, just happens to have the organs under her head. The liver placed near the feet, maybe an after thought, maybe the killer was going to take this but changed his mind and threw it down.

Reasoning: I couldn’t definitely say what the ripper was thinking, I can only make an assumption using the evidence, and piecing everything together as I see it.

Hi Natasha,

MK known to ripper: I know where you're coming from, Natasha, but I'd object that, although it might very much look that way especially after one asks oneself 'why' and connects it with hate, which we ourselves would normally direct at a person known to us, be it personally or by means of face, information, etc, I'd object that there is no other indication for this in the injuries other than what our emotions lead us to. It CAN very well be so, but it really needn't. So it's not that the amount, and nature, of the injuries indicate that victim and killer knew each other, it merely SEEMS that they indicate - and to you more than to me [pls excuse the capital letters, the italics here are a bit moody at times].
Keep in mind that before Kelly one could call the mutilations on Eddowes the most ghastly - were they not numerous and ghastly enough to make the same assumption? There are other explanation models for this, no less implying than following from the severity of mutilations that victim and perp knew each other.

silent entry: again, it MAY be she knew him and let him in. But given her part time occupation we also have to consider that she'd let in a complete stranger. If she let in anyone at all, that is.

noise: But a noise was heard, but 2 ear-witnesses at approx. the same time, a cry 'murder!'
I don't know enough about the exact nature of acoustics at Miller's Court back then, since it was poor housing one should think that people would hear a lot. That said, houses were not quite as easy for eavesdropping as cheap modern housing today. More importantly, both ear-witnesses didn't act on what they heard, stating that this sort of thing was to be heard often. Ofc we don't know whether what they heard was the voice of Mary Kelly. There is a good chance, though, as with a murder really happening. More to the point, if 2 people are not reacting on a shout of 'murder!' - what else would people ignore in terms of noise?

not buying opening means: I suppose such a thing could have in principle been confirmed even after the door was broken down - it depends on the state of the broken down door. But yes, it's indeed an important issue. If Barnett was telling the truth it would explain everything about it, however. I know locks that behave in this way myself.

scared of man: you appear to be conscious about the contradictions. Mainly we all would need more information, and this could only be coming from Barnett. You still need to make your case about Kelly possibly knowing her murderer... Also, why do you think he didn't reside in the East End?

heart-symbolism: the heart readily invites interpretation. Which is precisely why one should be careful with such. On the other hand, if you interpret it this way, why not the killer also? So I take your point. It's not a given, mind you.

staging/arm: that is if he was staging anything at all. I've read other posts expressing similar notions. Most of how all victims were positioned exhibit nothing else with certainty above them lying as one would expect, with the mutilations in mind. In Kelly's case much more was done, and with some deliberation, it seems. The decision has to be about whether anything was done with a later audience in mind or not [this also goes for the entrails placed over the shoulders with previous victims]. It's a heavy decision to make, as either possibility results in 2 very different pictures as motivation is concerned.
Do the details have meaning? For sure. Is it meaning to the perpetrator alone, or is it addressed meaning?
So, was there a message at all? It might look that way. It WILL look that way, to anyone encountering, but we do take things personally in this way. We read it, into it. And it might be difficult to think the killer wasn't thinking about those finding the scene. And yet it very well might be so.

placing: again, your observations and ideas from them revolve around a very practical approach... I'm getting at something here...
It's a bit like, 'if I was the killer, if I'd have been in that room, I would...'
Nononono - if you were in that room you'd be having tea with Mary. You wouldn't murder her in the first place. What you're doing is something very, very sane: you look at it and you work on a decision of what would make sense to you. As you said:
'Reasoning: I couldn’t definitely say what the ripper was thinking, I can only make an assumption using the evidence, and piecing everything together as I see it.'
Neither can I, definitely say what he was thinking. But the 'as you see it' might depend on how you look in the first place. It's why I was asking with such an emphasis about the handling. Take a step back and look at Mary's room again -
whatever the motive, who ever was there - doesn't it look monstrous to you, doesn't it look insane.
I suggest that the practical point of view, of 'this has been done because it makes sense this or that way', seen by the healthy, purely functional and practical eye of a sane, healthy person might not be enough to explain what might very well be what it looks like: a painting painted by insanity. Not without sense. But a sense that doesn't follow the same logic, the same [I]motivation[I].
I kept harking on the handling, because I want to suggest that there was more to it than mere practicality, i.e. handling as a means [taking the organ, transferring it, placing it somewhere] - that the handling itself was of importance to him, and so was the placing, at least of what was found underneath Kelly's head.

I'll open a new thread in a bit that deals with this question, and others.
I'll attach a bit of a musing about the whole question of what the word 'pathological' might mean in this context, don't know what I'll call the threat yet, just look out for the so far only thread by me if you're interested.
It'll also be about some of the approaches here on the board, basically about whether or not we have access to something so different and perhaps 'incomprehensible' - I noticed that more often this approach is present: what is the most logical to ME. In other words, how much sense can I drain from what we call insanity by approaching those question with the logic of sanity.

[Natasha]

Squatter's Rights

This might not be the right place to post this, but I would like to add further to my previous post about the key to Millers Court.

I think it may have been possible that Kelly and Barnett had the locks changed. Seeing as they were in arrears and maybe because they didn't have anywhere else to go they had the locks changed so that McCarthy couldn't gain entry. This seems a plausible reason as to why the door was locked.

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,
I'll reply to several of your posts in one, if you don't mind.



JtR believing MK to be pregnant/bad health: if we entertain this idea we'd have to presume that the killer knew them, unless he had a very uncanny gift to spot disease and pregnancy [a little like the 'Wolfen' in the movie of that title]. Especially with disease being rather common under such living conditions the latter is rather unlikely. The former I'm ready to accept as a hypothesis, although it'd need a lot of work and circumstantial evidence to support.
Your reading of the position of the arm is one of potentially many; doesn't mean you're wrong, ofc.

Placing and handling of no specific meaning: you mean it was arbitrary?

Sending a message: so you say he had an audience [of later, those discovering the body] in mind? It's a question one should indeed discuss...

'Now Kelly’s organs were handled, not taken (apart from heart) but why?':
Indeed - why?

Symbolic meaning: Meaning, it sure looks like it. Symbolic - maybe? Maybe not so symbolic?

Putting [intestines] over the shoulder [...] out of necessity, maybe so he can move freely in the body: Yes, that would be a very practical reason...

design: ...

On the whole there are 2 explanation models in what you wrote, concerning the handling: the symbolic and the practical. As I was teasing Abby: is this your reasoning or the killers?

Hi Sepiae

In my opinion I believe MJK was known to the ripper, the amount of injuries inflicted upon her indicated this. The killer was able to gain entrance to the room without the neighbours hearing anything. If she was awake when the killer entered the room then why was there absolutely no noise, no exclamation of surprise upon seeing someone come into the room. If she let someone in, I think there would be some exchange of words that the nieghbours may have heard. I'm sure it would be possible that Prater heard noises on occasion from Kelly's room. If she was asleep, again there was no noise, no struggle to gain access into the room. The door was locked and had to be broken down with an axe, so I think the killer had knowledge on how to gain access to the room without eliciting any noise.
I don’t buy the idea that by reaching through the window the door could be open. Why use an axe to brake the door down? I don’t think McCarthy would have wanted to spend money repairing it, not if he saw another opportunity to gain access. I know he had just witnessed seeing a dead body, but it's likely that he would make a connection with using the window to gain access to the room upon seeing through it and would have suggested to the authorities that they use that method to gain access to the room. We also do not know for sure exactly where the window was broken.
I can even go further and suggest that the ‘lost key’ was in the possession of the killer.

The heart being missing suggest a personal attachment to the victim, not just someone who had randomly met her.
Barnett said Kelly was scared of a man, I feel this was not in reference to the ripper, though that being said she may have personally known the ripper and after what he had done feared for her safety, but then again if that was the case would she not have fled London. This notion of knowing the ripper feeds into my ‘murder what murder’ post. To add, if she was scared of a man, then I think this man didn't reside in London, or at least anywhere near the east end.

Barnett is our only link to Kelly, and I feel something doesn’t add up about him.

Position of arm: as I said it could have something to do with the ripper thinking Kelly was pregnant or it could just mean the killer was trying to stage the body maybe for practical reasons perhaps so the body didn’t fall. Thinking about it now the position of the body shows us that perhaps the killer was particular and fixated on detail and the presentation of this murder. It has been said that maybe the killer didn’t want to see the faces of the victims and had turned the head to the side. Now I have said before that maybe the partition was the way in and out of the room.

With the body being 'staged' what was the message he was sending out?

Absence of the heart suggests the organ has meaning to the killer. Could it be linked to love, maybe. Or maybe the killer took the heart as a way of calling Kelly a heartless woman. Kelly may have wronged someone. It has been suggested that perhaps Kelly’s husband may have still been alive (of course that is if she was married and had kids) and perhaps he may have had something to do with her death.

Handling of organs: the spleen was placed on the left side, now the spleen is located on the left hand side, so the placing of that organ I don't think is important. The kidneys, uterus and breast being placed in an unusual place is something that intrigues me. All I can think is that the killer had put Kelly in a sitting position for what reason I don't know, and had threw the kidneys etc not placed them, and Kelly being put back down again, just happens to have the organs under her head. The liver placed near the feet, maybe an after thought, maybe the killer was going to take this but changed his mind and threw it down.

Reasoning: I couldn’t definitely say what the ripper was thinking, I can only make an assumption using the evidence, and piecing everything together as I see it.

[lynn cates]

thread

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Here is the thread.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4590

PM me your email and I'll see if I can find a copy of the dissertation.

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

more handling...

Hi absolutely everyone [fellow time travellers],


just read through the replies to my question what people think about the handling and placing of the organs [and replied].

I would like to keep up the question and to probe you further. Refreshing the question:

Notably the organs were not merely left in Mary Kelly's room, they were handled, handled and deliberately placed.

The answers so far were dedicated to either symbolic or very, very practical solutions - practical as in 'what can make sense [to me]?'

Can I suggest that you the question again, but putting a stress on the word
handled ...

As Natasha asked: 'Kelly’s organs were handled, not taken (apart from heart) but why?'

[sepiae]

Hi Natasha,
I'll reply to several of your posts in one, if you don't mind.

believed MJK to be pregnant (...) / something in common, apart from the obvious, that being bad health.

The placing and handling I think would therefore have no specific meaning in itself, but if the above is true (... --> referring to assumption of pregnancy on behalf of the perp) I guess the killer was sending a message to that effect.

Now Kelly’s organs were handled, not taken (apart from heart) but why? The Killer seems to have a morbid fascination with the body internally rather then externally. It could be that the organs had a symbolic meaning to the ripper.

With regard to the intestines. Some were still attached, so that being said then I don't think the ripper put them over the shoulder for 'design' but rather out of necessity, maybe so he can move freely in the body.
Now the intestines that were placed between the arm and body, again I don't think it was as some kind of 'design'.

JtR believing MK to be pregnant/bad health: if we entertain this idea we'd have to presume that the killer knew them, unless he had a very uncanny gift to spot disease and pregnancy [a little like the 'Wolfen' in the movie of that title]. Especially with disease being rather common under such living conditions the latter is rather unlikely. The former I'm ready to accept as a hypothesis, although it'd need a lot of work and circumstantial evidence to support.
Your reading of the position of the arm is one of potentially many; doesn't mean you're wrong, ofc.

Placing and handling of no specific meaning: you mean it was arbitrary?

Sending a message: so you say he had an audience [of later, those discovering the body] in mind? It's a question one should indeed discuss...

'Now Kelly’s organs were handled, not taken (apart from heart) but why?':
Indeed - why?

Symbolic meaning: Meaning, it sure looks like it. Symbolic - maybe? Maybe not so symbolic?

Putting [intestines] over the shoulder [...] out of necessity, maybe so he can move freely in the body: Yes, that would be a very practical reason...

design: ...

On the whole there are 2 explanation models in what you wrote, concerning the handling: the symbolic and the practical. As I was teasing Abby: is this your reasoning or the killers?

[sepiae]

Hi Sepiae
I think the placing of organs indicates a carefulness, perhaps experience with, and a purpose-specific desire to cleanly, quietly, efficiently get at the organs he took away.

I do not think the ripper was haphazardly slashing and cutting away, randomly searching about. I think he was experimenting, playing--savoring the cuts he made with his knife.

Hi Normal Abby,

I also don't think that the action as such was completely random and haphazardly, as you put it. That is, that they were without a specific victim-related purpose. The repetitions that connects them alone already indicate this.
About how much opportunity he had for experiment and savour during the mutilations, at least in the murders prior to Kelly, one would need to speculate.

Your reply as to how you see the handling of organs is very purpose-, practicality-related...
From whose point of view, yours or the perp's?