The posing of the body

Hi Mike,

Where did I state or even suggest that it’s a given that shocking the public wasn’t part of his thrill? What I wrote was that I think he saw it as a welcome by-product rather than that it was his main thrill.

And again, the fact that he left his victims’ bodies outside in the street may very well just have been a consequence of the simple fact that the easy prey he chose, i.e. prostitutes, who mostly serviced their clients out in the streets.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

If I characterized your comments incorrectly my apologies my friend,...I can assure you I would not skew them intentionally.

On the issue of where his prey was, if it was Street Whores or Unfortunates without homes, he knew where to find them where they worked in the cases of victims 1 and 2.....3 and 4 we cant be sure were working. In the case of victim 5, she may well have been sleeping in her own room. So if he is seeking working whores, why is he in a small courtyard?

My point is if you intend to portray the earlier outdoor venues by a preference based on greatest availability and opportunity, then you have to explain how the courtyard in Millers Court would appear to have those same features. From my perspective, Mary Ann Cox doesn't solicit in the courtyard, nor do any other women of that court that night. In fact by 3am, it seems all were sleeping in their own rooms. Unlike the women Jack killed....who were outside likely working, and without any room of their own.

If where he found Annie and Polly was his best chance of where to find such women each night.....rather than in a bordello or private room, then what the hell is he looking for in a small, narrow, dark and empty, courtyard?

There are only so many times that one can adjust the known behavior of the killer credibly without supporting evidence, what evidence do we have that Jack was required to, inspired to, or just curious about changing his ways? What definitive Jack characteristic is present in the evidence? Piles of things cut free? You and I both know better than that, the results are just cuts....similar to the many other unsolved knife attacks.

But senior medical professionals thought Polly and the Annie were killed so the killer could obtain the organ successfully extracted from Annie.

No 5 has commonalities, like Purposeful ones......placing a breast under a head,.... but lacking any context or meaning, like one completely flesh stripped thigh.

All the best Frank.

[FrankO]

I think on the last few posts by BB and Frank that it should be remembered that Jack the Ripper chose to kill in the street before Millers Court, where the general public was almost assuredly going to be the first to find the women. To say he was just preoccupied with his own "thang" doesnt address the shock factor he must have known his murders would have on the average person. Was that part of his thrill? We dont know...but its not a given it wasnt.

Hi Mike,

Where did I state or even suggest that it’s a given that shocking the public wasn’t part of his thrill? What I wrote was that I think he saw it as a welcome by-product rather than that it was his main thrill.

And again, the fact that he left his victims’ bodies outside in the street may very well just have been a consequence of the simple fact that the easy prey he chose, i.e. prostitutes, who mostly serviced their clients out in the streets.

All the best,
Frank

1. Like he did with Kelly's abdomen, you mean?

2. Can we prove that for Eddowes?

Hi Sam,

On your point one, since it it was Kelly that I was referring to..,yeah...thats what I mean. I used that action to contrast the random slashing action in terms of emotions evident within the act, and the entire murder...not as you just did.. to attempt to link the act with others in the series.

On your point 2,...... can we disprove it? Seems to me that even in the witness testimony itself there is a possibility she knew the man by the familiar way she touched him. We do not know why she turned the opposite direction of her man and her usual home, and it was suggested that she may have had an arranged meeting,...if so likely based on a location, not a specific time. As she was in jail for an undetermined time until just before 1am.

I dont mean to debate whether there are wounds on Marys remains that suggest they were delivered with emotion and there are some that seem devoid of it. Thats what the evidence suggests. I for one don't arbitrarily toss potential evidence until Im sure its irrelevant myself.....and a murder in a bedroom with the victim in her underwear that has a beginning that is in essence a knife attack...(the only such attack in the series...3 of the 4 others were subdued before any knife was used, the exception not likely being a true victim as it is)....severe facial scoring and slashes virtually erasing her identity and a conclusion that ends with a heart being taken.....to suggest that there is no emotional context to acts that occurred in the room is frankly ridiculous, unless proof of such a claim could be provided.

He meets all the others outdoors supposedly while they work, easily allowing for no prior knowledge of each other before that night......he came to a near naked, perhaps sleeping woman's own room, and attacked her in her bed, ....which easily allows for speculation that the two may have had knowledge of each other.

Or does this brand new iteration of Jack just try doorknobs to locate victims now?

These are some suggestive and compelling details....

-She may have been asleep when he arrived, and nearly naked, in her own bed, in her own room in a tiny courtyard accessed only by a 20 plus foot stone archway. Not a busy thoroughfare for "trawling".
-The circumstances make this a unique event within the 5 Canonical's,.. this murder is not similar to the others.
-None of the previous interest with specific organs is present.
-Her face is not "nicked", these are not "chevrons".
-None of the previous organs taken from victims 2 and 4 have direct symbolic link to the various states or forms of emotion. Or symbolic connections between humans.
-The attack commenced with knife use, and this knife slashed through a sheet...leaving one to imagine an incensed or emotionally involved killer.
-There are also cuts made that would require some concentration and of course some more precise knife work.
-There are organs that are found in unusual places when considering the activities and his effort to make them happen. For example, lifting out the viscera we see on the night table and placing it essentially behind him to his left. That can be seen as something purely for utilities sake...to get it out of the way. Lifting a portion of the corpse to not once, but twice, place excised matter from her external upper body and her internal midsection under it exceeds what can be construed as moves of "pure convenience".

I dont think a plausible case exists for a cool calculated killer who attacks a woman with a knife from behind and slashes her face randomly...leaving himself completely at the mercy of his ability to keep her quiet while he attacks her.....not like Jack, who kept them quiet before he kills them....and without a knife.

I think her face is as much confirmation that some emotions were involved... just like the murder with 39 stabs was.

Best regards Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Thats certainly different than the "field surgery" cutting.... performed with more more controlled hands for one, as exampled in the way he removes flesh in flaps before starting.

Like he did with Kelly's abdomen, you mean?

I also know that ruining faces with random slashes is often linked with pre-existing knowledge of victim and killer, often in romantic context. Can you prove in this case that is not the case?

Can we prove that for Eddowes?

How do you know this? You've decided something is personal and something is purposeless. You can't determine what is emotional and what isn't.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike, I seriously doubted that you were suggesting that the facial wounds were not evidence that emotion was present at that point in those acts, ....her face is slashed from many directions and with random strokes. That's what "slashing" is. You dont think being attacked in her night clothing and in her own bed in the middle of the night also suggests a personal relationship, intimacy, and therefore, emotions?

Thats certainly different than the "field surgery" cutting.... performed with more more controlled hands for one, as exampled in the way he removes flesh in flaps before starting.

Maybe you do think that what happened in that room appears to be just impersonal and clinical, and things are placed out of the way, not in particular places. But thats not how the evidence reads to me or most everyone else...uteri dont rest under heads, neither do breasts..and facial wounds are almost always related to the knowledge of the victim and the killer of each other....they are therefore personal by definition. When delivered with random backhand and forehand motions, almost certainly in an emotional state.Taking the time to strip flesh from a thigh isnt. Nor is it a functional aspect of mutilation that would aid him in what he has done 3 of 4 times prior to this. More appropriately, what he does not do in room 13, if Jack.

If you want this man to be Jack, which I know you do, then at least factor in behaviors and skills that pre-existed Mary Kelly,..... instead of tossing all he did out with the bathwater and re-building his personna, his motivation, style and "stranger status" based on a murder you dont even know he committed.

I know the killer called Jack the Ripper killed Annie Chapman, do you know the same man killed Mary? I also know that ruining faces with random slashes is often linked with pre-existing knowledge of victim and killer, often in romantic context. Can you prove in this case that is not the case? And for the Pro-Jack people like you for this C5 victim, you should be using that data yourself. Annie has things found around her, perhaps things placed around her. So does Mary.

So no need to act so surprised when I suggest the bleeding obvious, in evidence, again.

Best regards

[Mr Chumley]

The killings did not seem to be done in a rage of any description, the actions were almost dispassionate, concentrated and purposeful, whether driven by some desire sexually or otherwise is random speculation. The bodies, with the exception of Kelly, who was set about with not only a knife but suggested an axe, were not the subject of an enraged or ferocious attack

[The Good Michael]

..but we have physical evidence of wounds that were passionate and emotional....her face slashes...and ones that were clinical but lacked purpose...such as the stripping of flesh from one thigh.

How do you know this? You've decided something is personal and something is purposeless. You can't determine what is emotional and what isn't.

Cheers,

Mike

[Daveshredder]

It seems that mutilating the bodys, he focussed on the sexual organs. They had what he wanted there. However mutilating the face seems much more personal.
He had more time inside?
Mary was more attractive?

As for the strips of skin, well maybe he just enjoyed peeling them off ?

[babybird67]

hi Michael

i dont think he chose to murder in the street for shock value; i think it was just easier to pick up victims there. I dont think what other people would think about his actions entered his mind.

Of course all this is speculation from afar...how can we establish motive and how can we establish what we think the killer was thinking? We can't, i don't think, but i still like to speculate.

I don't see enraged passion in the MJK murder; i see clinical dehumanisation. This was the one place, where he killed in private, that he could have left a letter, a message, anything, to communicate with the Police or the public: he didn't.

To me, that suggests that his consciousness was focussed elsewhere than on what other people thought...i think he would have thought it beneath him to alter his behaviour by trying to second-guess what other people thought.

just my opinion, not a very informed one, and all speculation, but hey! it's interesting to speculate sometimes!

hope you're enjoying the weekend

Hello again folks,

I think on the last few posts by BB and Frank that it should be remembered that Jack the Ripper chose to kill in the street before Millers Court, where the general public was almost assuredly going to be the first to find the women. To say he was just preoccupied with his own "thang" doesnt address the shock factor he must have known his murders would have on the average person. Was that part of his thrill? We dont know...but its not a given it wasnt.

Mike, I do see that you feel the room in general is just as it would be based on the convenience for the carnage not on any preferences on the killers part, and I can only say that the organs under the head alone suggests differently, and her left arm was 100% not where it is when he was working, so he flipped it or placed it back over her. Maybe nothing as you say, but deliberate superfluous acts signal some potential keys about this killer.

In one example, a killer who is trying desperately to make an angry murder of a love interest look like a clinical dissection of a Serial Killer, but lacking the previous focus on organs or the motivations behind the actions to be completely convincing.

You may diss that idea also....but we have physical evidence of wounds that were passionate and emotional....her face slashes...and ones that were clinical but lacked purpose...such as the stripping of flesh from one thigh.

All the best.

[babybird67]

good points Frank

If I’d have to venture a guess, I’d say that the Ripper was inwardly directed rather than outwardly. Because that would make him an inconspicuous and seemingly inoffensive bloke. And as such, he wouldn’t attract any attention to himself between murders, and wouldn’t be suspected by anybody, with the possible exception of a couple of family members.

I agree Frank that whoever he was was inwardly directed. I think this is the reason why i come to the conclusion that he did not actually write any of the Ripper letters. What was going on outside of himself in relation to himself was irrelevant to him imo. If he was at all bothered, the MJK scene was the place in which he could have sent cryptic messages to the Police and left clues as to his motives/identity.

I think the very reason he was so inwardly directed (i do like that phrase) is the reason the contemporary Police and the rest of us now have so very little to go on to try to establish who he was.

I see him as just getting on with it...without referencing the outside world at all.

[FrankO]

Besides the escalation of his own drives, I think Jack got quite a kick from 'upping the shock value' of his murders- which is also why he killed them & left them in public where he knew they would quickly be found.

Hi Archaic,

I don’t believe the Ripper was out to shock, but think he rather saw that as a welcome by-product. He would have been taking a huge risk killing and leaving them in public only for that reason. To me, it’s far more likely that he wasn’t that much of a planner and that it was just a consequence of choosing prostitutes as very easy victims, most of whom simply serviced their clients out in the streets.

...Jack was clearly anticipating the utter HORROR which awaited those who found her... knowing it would also be experienced by all those who investigated the scene, by the neighborhood, & by extension everyone everywhere who ever heard or read about it.

I’m not sure about that either, Archaic. If he was, he could have done other things. He could have written or drawn in blood on the wall, for example. If he was actually out to shock, he could have done things more like the Gainsville Ripper, Danny Rolling. But he didn’t.

If I’d have to venture a guess, I’d say that the Ripper was inwardly directed rather than outwardly. Because that would make him an inconspicuous and seemingly inoffensive bloke. And as such, he wouldn’t attract any attention to himself between murders, and wouldn’t be suspected by anybody, with the possible exception of a couple of family members.

Well, that's my general take on it, anyway, but it applies to MJK as well. With the possible exception of her head being turned towards the windows and some body parts under her pillow, I think everything was positioned for practical reasons and not posed. As to the 'stuff' left under the pillow, I think that may have been done for the purpose of surprise rather than propping up the head. I think her head wouldn't have been lying differently if there had been nothing under the pillow.

All the best,
Frank

[The Good Michael]

Mike,

When I come home from work, I sometimes take off one shoe and toss it. I may remove my shirt and put it on a chair. Later on, I might set a plate that I've eaten from on that shirt. I may also remove my socks while I'm at the computer. One could stay scrunched up while the other might be straighter and tossed recklessly over my phone. I assure you I have no conscious pattern, yet a Japanese man (let's say) might, upon entering my apartment, discern something other than random carelessness, as my untidiness may be something beyond his grasp. You are not familiar with scenes of butchery (I hope, though you ARE Canadian), so you are looking for something that may not be there. I, on the other hand, have murdered randomly, by the droves. Stuff just happens in the heat of the moment. There's no artistry that I'm aware, though I can't vouch for my subconscious.

I'm not saying there is nothing in it. I'm saying that I don't see it, and that (probably) the police didn't either. They didn't have a lot of time for speculation, and neither had they Stephen King novels, horror movies, and Anne Rice to give them pre-knowledge about things, from which to garner ideas to speculate upon.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike,

We don't know that she fended off attacks. Maybe, maybe not. It would make sense that her throat was cut first, but we don't know about the face. I suggest that it was done later, after he finsihed his primary work, whatever that may have been.

Cheers

One more thing: I was suggesting that her breast wasn't necessarily 'placed' under her head.
Repositioning of the body could have caused her head with floppy neck to to have been drawn up and partially onto the tissue, Given a soft, perhaps concave mattress, blood, and wet tissue, this doesn't seem impossible. The idea that it was used as a prop seems unlikely as it served no real purpose as such. If he wanted her head to be propped up as if she were awaiting a customer, why not make a nice little pile of things that would really prop her head up? This is what I meant by incidental. Things could have occurred because MJK was being moved around a bit, with no intention other than to get at things.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike,

On the first point we know, or have good reason to suspect that there were slashes with the blade when she is at that upper right corner, the attack commencement. We have the sheets and the defensive wounds for the slash evidence, and we have the medical opinion and the blood evidence for the commencement.

Since her face is quite obviously slashed with random strokes, as was the sheet, and we know that at that point there were in fact slashes taking place that would appear afterward as randomly made,.. why would we logically assume the random facial slashes were made later in the murder? We have both opportunity and precedent in the earlier time frame.

I think with the head prop you're trying to find something to use to explain them in the way of assisting his mutilations, or as a natural "incidental" aspect of them, but a breast and a uterus say thats incorrect amigo.

Both cannot be explained in that fashion you mention, he places materials to his left on the nightstand, why not those organs as well if he just wants rid of them...(Even though one of them he has extracted and taken twice before...the only repeated act relating to the organs)..., the only point Im making as a conclusion is that he did so deliberately, and for the moment, for reasons known only to him.

But he adjusted the position of the body albeit slightly for no other reason than to place organs under her head. It didn't assist extractions there anymore than the table would, it was unnecessary, and it serves no obvious mechanical function that is required.

Even though I do not believe that this a clear Ripper murder at all......dont we have perhaps some precedent for placement of items? With Annie, and Kate. Maybe even with Liz.

My point being that Pro-Jack theorists here can use that "propping" just as well as Con-Jack ones can. It may be a Ripper signature...setting the scene.

Once again, cheers Michael.

[The Good Michael]

Mike,

We don't know that she fended off attacks. Maybe, maybe not. It would make sense that her throat was cut first, but we don't know about the face. I suggest that it was done later, after he finsihed his primary work, whatever that may have been.

Cheers

One more thing: I was suggesting that her breast wasn't necessarily 'placed' under her head.
Repositioning of the body could have caused her head with floppy neck to to have been drawn up and partially onto the tissue, Given a soft, perhaps concave mattress, blood, and wet tissue, this doesn't seem impossible. The idea that it was used as a prop seems unlikely as it served no real purpose as such. If he wanted her head to be propped up as if she were awaiting a customer, why not make a nice little pile of things that would really prop her head up? This is what I meant by incidental. Things could have occurred because MJK was being moved around a bit, with no intention other than to get at things.

Cheers,

Mike