Apparently by design

[Jon Guy]

Hello

I have always wondered about the below. Does anyone have any thoughts ?
Has it been discussed before ?

Dr Phillips on Chapman :

" found a small piece of coarse muslim and a pocket comb in a paper case lying at the feet of the woman,and they apparently had been placed there in order or arranged there"

Dr Brown on Eddowes :

"a piece of intestine of about 2 feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design"

Dr Bond on Kelly :

"uterus, kidney and one breast under head. One breast by right foot, liver between feet.

[Doctor X]

Well, clearly Jack placed the intestine there. Was it by "design" as in it had some significance for him or was it just a convenient place for him to drop it? As for Chapman, assuming he did take her rings as trophies, he may have simply discarded them there. These were things he was not interested in.

With Mary Kelly . . . it may be too easy to read significance in her dissection. I am not contending that none exists; just that it is too easy to make up a significance for where he started placing pieces.

What but design of darkness to appall. . . ?

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[paul emmett]

Hello John, Doc.

I have a take on this, which at best represents a minority position. I feel that JTR was performative and dramatic. So I believe that it's not just the muslin, comb and intestine fragment that are placed by design. Hell, I think the cachous are placed in Stride's hand--and even though I have heard many intelligent folks hypothesize about how she could have held onto them during the attack, I remain unconvinced.

Regarding Chapman, let me quote something Phillips says before he gets to the muslin and comb apparently being placed at her feet. "The left arm was PLACED across the left breast. The legs were drawn up." She has been posed; the repetition of the word "placed" emphasizes that Phillips thinks this. And the pose is almost identical to the pose MJK is found in, left hand, legs and all.

So I think we can learn a lot from the crime scenes and body positionings. And, of course, since I do see Jack as performative and playful, cold and calculating I feel that the graffito and some of the letters are legit. I think, for example, that Jack the Ripper did name himself, and that his selection of a name helps us understand his psyche.

And you?

[Sam Flynn]

a small piece of coarse muslim...

...now there'll be trouble

[Monty]

Jon,

It certainly I have asked before...I myself asked the same question some years back.

'Apparently, by design' is just as intriguing as the word 'placed'.

And Paul, Id also like to cite the neatness of Kellys clothing along with the others you mention.

Monty

[Mitch Rowe]

The "posing" is another clue to how much time JTR may have had possibly.
None with Polly,Liz,or Kate. But nearly the same with Annie and Mary. I thought that maybe in Annies case the arm sort of fell there after JTR removed the rings from her finger if that the hand she wore them on. But I think its more than just coincidence that those two poses are nearly identical. The arangement of Marys organs are certainly striking. It all seems to point away from a simple "Gather some organs and sell them" idea.
One could assume JTR was tring to say something. But what? Could one of JTRs loved ones have ended up dead in a similar pose? Could the position of the organs represent certain items or articles that were placed beside his mothers body for instance?

I havent a clue as to what to make of it.

[Sam Flynn]

Could the position of the organs represent certain items or articles that were placed beside his mothers body for instance?

She must have died a horrible death, if so, Mitch

Seriously, apart from the organs stuffed under her head, there is little in the Kelly scene that couldn't be explained by the killer's simply dumping the organs out of the way as he went along. To that extent, they may have been about as much "placed" as a dog "places" the earth as it digs for a bone.

[paul emmett]

Seriously, apart from the organs stuffed under her head, there is little in the Kelly scene that couldn't be explained by the killer's simply dumping the organs out of the way as he went along. To that extent, they may have been about as much "placed" as a dog "places" the earth as it digs for a bone.

Hello, Sam. I am even a bit surprised that you exclude the organs stuffed under her head. But I think your dog analogy is most apt--and literal.

Many people here see JTR as a mad dog, salivating randomly towards a kill. And who does he kill? The first woman he can grab! And what organ does he take? The first one he can grab! And what is his motive? He likes to cut up people, which seems like the first motive we can grab.

That's just not how I see it. I think he is a planner and a performer. I think he knows who he's going to kill, and there is a reason that the first three victims look similar. And there's a reason that the next three don't. And I don't think anyone can just cut up because he likes to cut up: there have to be reasons, conscious and unconscious, WHY they like to cut up. And those reasons can be both pursued and instructive. And they can be pursued through the crime scene.

There's something going on with thier left hands; there's something going on with the fact that the bodies are left posed for sex, for birthing, or foetal. I think Dan's article "Heartless" shows another aspect of JTR's planning, namely that he plans his kills to include mistakes made by his "pursuers" in earlier crimes. It's a joke; it's showing off. It's all planned out. They say I leave messages, OK , I will leave one. They say I'm a Jew, OK, I'm a Jew. Ha Ha!

Like Mitch, I can't explain all of this. But in the past on different threads there have been interesting suggestions as to the meaning of ,say, leaving the uterus, which he seemed to be seeking; the kidneys, which he sought once; and the breast, which he seemed to avoid--all stuffed under MJK's death's head.

And whether one agrees with these suggestions or not, they seem to take us further than the Mad Dog theory.

[Jon Guy]

Doc,Paul,Sam,Monty and Mitch

Many thanks for your thoughts.

Personally, I can`t see the Eddowe`s colon, or the Chapman`s bits and bobs been placed for our benefit. Whatever mental health issues he had, I believe these moments of " careful arrangements" which seemingly follow the brutality of murder and ripping are part of his illness. To be honest I was hoping someone may have recognised these traits. I was thinking along the lines of autism.

Regarding Kelly`s organ placement,I don`t think the digging dog analogy offered by Sam is accurate (soz Sam !!) as nothing was dropped on the floor, which I feel is significant in pointing to the fact that the killer was careful about where he was putting the organs.All were on the bed and table.
I did think that the mutilations may have commenced when she was in the top corner of her bed and then she was pulled over to the middle, and hence,the organs ended up under head ?

I do believe that these are good clues if we can read them

Anyway, thanks again guys

[paul emmett]

Personally, I can`t see the Eddowe`s colon, or the Chapman`s bits and bobs been placed for our benefit. Whatever mental health issues he had, I believe these moments of " careful arrangements" which seemingly follow the brutality of murder and ripping are part of his illness. To be honest I was hoping someone may have recognised these traits. I was thinking along the lines of autism.



the mutilations may have commenced when she was in the top corner of her bed and then she was pulled over to the middle, and hence,the organs ended up under head ?

Hi, Jon. Ya know, "it ain't over 'til it's over." So I just wanted to note that in the last quote here, even if she were pulled over, there would have to be some positioning. And don't you think she was pulled over, then mutilated?

More importantly, I think the careful arrangements were indeed part of Jack's mental illness, but that doesn't mean that they weren't for show too.

Most importantly, I would have liked to hear what you had to say about autism here--or maybe OCD?

[Doctor X]

Gang:

Unfortunately, we are dealing with speculations. One can "es'plain" Mary Kelly as the simple convenience of him placing "bits" near him. I noticed that differences in the references exist regarding "what" was on the table. Anyways, that could be it.

Or . . . he had some "thing" about it.

I tend to go less with "performance art" in that if he WAS why did he not make it more obvious? However, it is all speculation.

He was not the more typical serial killer who taunts the police--he left no messages at the scene. Some discount the graffito for that reason; you cannot prove he wrote it. Same with the letters. Did he write any of them? I am not saying he did not; I am merely acknowledging the debate on the subject. It is not clear. There are not like five letters with details in the same handwriting.

I would think if he was that concerned with creating an impression, he would have done so. That does not remove the possibility he did not play a bit of "silly buggers" with the police.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[paul emmett]

it is all speculation.

Hello, J.D.

I think you've hit on THE perfect title for THE book on JTR.

I also liked "bit of 'silly buggers' with the police", because I think JTR is performative, but most subtle. It seems the height of irony to say that JTR wasn't into being obvious when the killings were so "in your face," but I think his silly buggers were quite indirect. The meaning of The Goulston Graffito, for example, is still being debated. The fact that "jack" meant "the penis, espescially when erect" in 1800's British slang(Spears, SLANG AND EUPHEMISM, 208) makes "Jack The Ripper" a morbid but esoteric "joke."

And suppose he did leave a message; suppose he did leave the cachous in Stride's hand to let the police know he was cleaning up those "dirty whores"--well, that would be subtle!

As far as MJK. We know what's on the table, right? Bowyer didn't, but Bond did. Also, you cant put those parts under MJK's head for convienience, can you?

[bolo]

MJK's killer may have placed one of her breasts under the head to make her look to the left so that the first one who'd take a peek through the window into the room would look straight into her gashed face, at least that's the only theoretical "breast placement" explanation I can come up with without reading too much into the whole thing.

The design question is very difficult to answer in my opinion. What may seem as design may very well have been just a necessity or even coincidence.

It's hard for me to accept that the killer had enough "emotional capacities" left to dig too deeply into some weird symbolism during or shortly after the murders. There may have been design or planning involved but only on a very crude level in order to gross people out.

[Sam Flynn]

even if [Kelly] were pulled over [from the right side of the bed], there would have to be some positioning [of organs?].

If you are referring to the positioning of organs, Paul, it's worth noting that only the spleen was found on the bed at the left side of the body - arguably where the killer spent much of his time during the mutilation. In other words, the killer seems to have kept his "working surface" (i.e. that part of the bed nearest him) relatively uncluttered. This smacks of practicality, rather than a desire to place organs for shock value. If he were interested in the latter, why not pile everything up on the left side of the bed, where someone peeping through the window would have copped a real eye-full; or, indeed as some accounts would have it, strew Kelly's innards all over the room?

[Doctor X]

I think you've hit on THE perfect title for THE book on JTR.

The Ultimate Complete Speculative Jack the Ripper



*Starts looking for a publisher*

I also liked "bit of 'silly buggers' with the police", because I think JTR is performative, but most subtle. It seems the height of irony to say that JTR wasn't into being obvious when the killings were so "in your face," but I think his silly buggers were quite indirect. The meaning of The Goulston Graffito, for example, is still being debated. The fact that "jack" meant "the penis, espescially when erect" in 1800's British slang(Spears, SLANG AND EUPHEMISM, 208) makes "Jack The Ripper" a morbid but esoteric "joke."

Hrrrm . . . I do not know. I am not convinced that Jack wrote the letter that "coined" the name.

And suppose he did leave a message; suppose he did leave the cachous in Stride's hand to let the police know he was cleaning up those "dirty whores"--well, that would be subtle!

More subtle than some of my posts! Anyways, that can be explain by reflexive flexion of the hands that happens when you separate the spinal cord from the brain--like kill the brain through strangulation/removing perfusion of the brain by opening the carotid and jugular.

As far as MJK. We know what's on the table, right? Bowyer didn't, but Bond did. Also, you cant put those parts under MJK's head for convienience, can you?

Depends on how big the bed is. What I mean by that is, he has to start putting pieces somewhere . . . running out of room. Anyways, my caution is just a caution. It does not take much for me to believe he had a reason for putting organs under her head; the problem is determining what that was from convenience to his disagreement with Prof. Moriarty's binomial theorem. . . .

Sam Flynn and bolo's points are noted. One has to be careful one is not reading significance into things. Granted, with the lack of evidence regarding meaning, it is easy to do that.

Yours truly,

--J.D.