One interesting thing in this ongoing discussion is how we try to prove different things by pointing out that our suggestions are the most rational ones, that they make the best sense.
To some extent, I think we fall into this trap because of the apron - we either interpret it as something he used to wipe his hands on in order to escape detection, or we believe that he carried the organs in it.
Both these acts would be rational things to do, and we tend to look for rational solutions on the Rippers behalf.
I think that we are sometimes forgetting that what the Ripper did was something that does not tally with most peoples suggestions of a rational behaviour - he killed women in the open street, to be able to rip them up and get at their innards. To do this, he was willing to risk his life. And that goes to prove that his relation to a womans abdominal organs was not a "rational" one.
To put it in other words, he was obsessed, either by the thought of excising these organs, or by the idea of actually owning them - or perhaps by a combination of both.
If we speculate along the line that he wished to actually own the organs (something that is strengthened by the fact that the excised parts were not just thrown away), then we may also offer a suggestion that the organs meant very, very much to him. He would have been thrilled, overjoyed and trembling with triumph once he held them in his hands.
In such a situation, maybe he would actually cherish the thought of putting them in his pocket? To get them close to him, get the feel of them. Maybe he would have preferred to carry them against his naked skin if he could?
The notion that he must have acted in a rational fashion, providing some sort of transportation means such as a sort of jar, a bag, a quart ale can - or a cutaway piece of apron - may well be very far from the truth.
The best,
Fisherman
To some extent, I think we fall into this trap because of the apron - we either interpret it as something he used to wipe his hands on in order to escape detection, or we believe that he carried the organs in it.
Both these acts would be rational things to do, and we tend to look for rational solutions on the Rippers behalf.
I think that we are sometimes forgetting that what the Ripper did was something that does not tally with most peoples suggestions of a rational behaviour - he killed women in the open street, to be able to rip them up and get at their innards. To do this, he was willing to risk his life. And that goes to prove that his relation to a womans abdominal organs was not a "rational" one.
To put it in other words, he was obsessed, either by the thought of excising these organs, or by the idea of actually owning them - or perhaps by a combination of both.
If we speculate along the line that he wished to actually own the organs (something that is strengthened by the fact that the excised parts were not just thrown away), then we may also offer a suggestion that the organs meant very, very much to him. He would have been thrilled, overjoyed and trembling with triumph once he held them in his hands.
In such a situation, maybe he would actually cherish the thought of putting them in his pocket? To get them close to him, get the feel of them. Maybe he would have preferred to carry them against his naked skin if he could?
The notion that he must have acted in a rational fashion, providing some sort of transportation means such as a sort of jar, a bag, a quart ale can - or a cutaway piece of apron - may well be very far from the truth.
The best,
Fisherman
Comment