Arrangement at her feet

[JTRSickert]

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering if anyone wanted to comment on the fact that Chapman's personal possessions that were on her at the time were laid out at her feet, almost in a ritualistic manner (However, despite the myth, none od the possessions were coins). Since it seems that Chapman was intentionally displayed to shock the public when her body was discovered, does anyone think the killer was trying to send a message? What could be said about the possessions at her feet? Why did he do this, especially considering that he literally killed her in daylight (the sun was up by that time...it was nearly 5:30 in the morning); so, this makes him a really ballsy fellow since he killer her at this time and still took the time out to cut out her uterus/vagina, lay down her possessions in a specific way, and steal the rings off of her fingers?

Anyone wanna omment on what it means, since we know the Royal theory is a bunch of hogwash?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering if anyone wanted to comment on the fact that Chapman's personal possessions that were on her at the time were laid out at her feet, almost in a ritualistic manner (However, despite the myth, none od the possessions were coins). Since it seems that Chapman was intentionally displayed to shock the public when her body was discovered, does anyone think the killer was trying to send a message? What could be said about the possessions at her feet? Why did he do this, especially considering that he literally killed her in daylight (the sun was up by that time...it was nearly 5:30 in the morning); so, this makes him a really ballsy fellow since he killer her at this time and still took the time out to cut out her uterus/vagina, lay down her possessions in a specific way, and steal the rings off of her fingers?

Anyone wanna omment on what it means, since we know the Royal theory is a bunch of hogwash?

See, I'm of the opinion that a few items dropped here and there can be taken to mean anything given a hopeful mind. What exactly do you mean when you say: "the possessions at her feet"?

[lynn cates]

explanation

Hello JTR. Go here, post #10.

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

Cheers.
LC

[Cuervo]

Hi, I´ve seen this discussion is a bit old, but I think it is quite interesting. As far as I know, these kind of things, as much as the slaughtery of the bodies, are part of the signature of the killer, which tells about the motives and personality of the murderer. To me, the killer wanted to show off, to shock with his acts, with the discovery of the body... but at the same time, the way of arrangings Chapman´s personal belongins means something more. I´m not sure about what to think about it...maybe some kind of last remorse or respect for the figure of a woman? In some cases, after all the savagery, serial killers leave traces of remorse like turning heads around or coevring the faces of the corpses for not seing their eyes or whole faces. I don´t know, what do you think?

[DrHopper]

This is interesting, and is certainly one of the big questions.
However, I think we need to define what we mean by 'arranged' - the word carries with it a huge amount of conceptual weight and baggage. It implies a deliberate action by the Ripper in placing the objects. Now, this may be in the form of a pattern or letter for example, something that acts as a symbol - the meaning of which is perhaps known only by him (or that we haven't recognised it yet), or just that he placed the objects in a pile at her feet - this is still a deliberate action and one that carries an equal weight of meaning to him and us.
But we also need to think about the fact that anyone going through pockets would have to drop the items they didn't want - this is an action, but carries a totally different meaning.
I personally don't think the Ripper took her rings, nor rifled through her pockets, and that her possessions were dropped by the person who did - John Davis - who, upon finding her dead, took some of the more valuable items from her. Just my hunch.

[DVV]

I personally don't think the Ripper took her rings, nor rifled through her pockets, and that her possessions were dropped by the person who did - John Davis - who, upon finding her dead, took some of the more valuable items from her. Just my hunch.

Hello Dr Hopper

he seems to me too terrified. I don't think he ever touched her.

[DrHopper]

Hello Dr Hopper

he seems to me too terrified. I don't think he ever touched her.

Hmmmm. Perhaps. I just find it unlikely that, having eviscerated Annie Chapman at that early stage of the morning, when people are about and moving, the ripper then proceeds to empty her, seemingly many, pockets, make a pile of the random objects he removed, remove her rings, oh and remove portions of the intestines, wrap them all up, put them in his pocket, and walk calmly into the sunrise. It fits the evidence better that the ripper kills Chapman, does his business and runs. Annie is found later, and the person finding her, sees she is dead, and being behind on the rent (for example) and understanding she has no further use for her belongings, pockets what he can before raising the alarm. This behaviour is not uncommon - one even reads stories of paramedics and ambulance drivers doing such.
As for Davis - he says he is scared at the inquest. Well, yes, but he is unlikley to say otherwise - he may also be regretting his actions - fear of getting found out as well as remorse, as well as now he realises that he is intimately involved in something much larger - the Whitechapel Murders. If not Davis, then one of the number of other people who saw her body - the men who worked for Mr Bailey for example, perhaps whilst Davis raised the alarm.

[The Good Michael]

The officer on the scene said nothing about arranged items. He said that when her body was moved, there were two combs and some cloth and an envelope with her meds in it. There was nothing arranged and it seems as if she may have been holding the items or at least some of the items when she was killed.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

You're half correct, Michael. The officer never mentioned arranged items, but Dr. Phillips did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[FrankO]

It fits the evidence better that the ripper kills Chapman, does his business and runs.

Hi DrHopper,

I find it interesting that a number of items (4 buttons, a thimble, a mustard tin) were found lying close to Eddowes’ body as well. Also, at least one of her 3 pockets was cut off and no money was found on her.

Plus, in the case of Nichols, her bonnet was off her head and, if I’m not mistaken, it was rather common for women to use their bonnet to keep their money or other items of value in. Several belongings were found in her clothes, but no money. Just like with Chapman and Eddowes.

Seen in that light, I’m not sure if what you suggest fits the evidence better. It’s not so odd to think that the Ripper would have wanted his money back and – just an idea – perhaps he attacked his victims while they weren’t focusing on him, but on putting away the money that he must have given them as a sign of good faith and as was quite possibly the normal procedure. Or he ‘took care’ of them first and then took back his money. Who knows?

All the best,
Frank

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi FrankO, you're on to something. And don't forget the cachous in Stride's hand. Three victims in a row. I personally don't feel as comfortable as other writers just relegating everything to coincidence because it's inconvenience. My explanation for this is that the Ripper used robbery as a ruse. The women emptied their pockets, he took whatever cash their was from their hand, and he killed them. This is why Eddowes was left holding a thimble and Stride the cachous. Chapman's belongings were at her feet because they were knocked from her hand as she was standing. The injuries to her fingers indicate that her rings were removed AFTER death.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Just in case anyone was wondering, Dr Phillips commented:

"(He) found a small piece of coarse muslin and a pocket comb in a paper case lying at the feet of the woman near the paling; and they apparently had been placed there in order or arranged there."

Is this sufficient cause for conspiracy?

[Tom_Wescott]

I guess I didn't read the earlier posts close enough. I didn't realize we were discussing a conspiracy. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the times just landed that way, perhaps with the appearance of being arranged. But surely one man is capable of arranging a hand full of items without the notion of a conspiracy?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

Tom,

You are right. Phillips did use the word 'arranged'. He doesn't seem to use it the way I would. It seems that he meant 'placed', though I can't be sure.

Arranged does have the meaning of placing something neatly, such as arranging clothing or shoes, but that is completely different from some sort of planned process, a ritualistic process if you will. Phillips indicates a neat placement next to the railing, and that might speak to the character of the murderer rather than to the psyche.


Mike

[Wickerman]

... I didn't realize we were discussing a conspiracy.

The suggestion of 'arrangement' implies intent, therefore the question of a 'message' arises.
Conspiracy theorists love the idea of arrangement, it lends itself to subjective interpretations to support their theories.

...
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the times just landed that way,..

Times = Items?
Yes, they fell that way?, agreed.

Of course, no self-respecting Unfortunate will take a customer without first seeing the colour of his money. So, it is quite reasonable to assume he had to offer her some coin first, before he had her confidence.

Therefore, once he has killed her, this being the best of times, and the worst of times, naturally he would rifle her clothes to retrieve his coin.

(Especially, if it was a sovereign.......with his face on it)