The posing of the body

Point being....posing is in essence just "moving or altering" and that is really beyond argument in the case in room 13. She had parts of her moved about, and placed.

Why is the question. Many think for no reason at all. I dont personally. I believe many placements were to create an illusion or representation of acts seen or read about earlier that Fall. And that they happened so as to redirect the investigators.

Best regards

I suppose thread wise all that need be said is that he did move her body to the middle of the bed, he did perform the bizarre ritual acts including organ placements, and he did put her left arm back across the chasm he made of her midsection.

Posing...arranging...moving....adjusting,
placing....altering.....affecting......whatever floats your boat. It happened.

Dismiss it before knowing if it means something.. or not, the answer is in the eye of the beholder.

The question is solvable but the intentions and the rationale for the actions are not clear at this point.

Best regards

[the_chopper]

audience of one

I also believe that Jack knew full well that with an indoor crime scene of such gruesome magnitude the Police would take PHOTOGRAPHS. They had been greatly criticized for not doing so with the earlier murders. In those cases, their reason was the need to get the appalling street murders cleaned up rather than waiting for daylight.

As I understand it, this is the first example of British Police crime scene photography; to assume that photos would be taken is a dubious assumption at best. In addition, even if the pictures were to be taken (which "Jack" wouldn't have known), logic would dictate that SUCH an horrific scene wouldn't be widely published, if at all (at the time.)

This indicates to me that the crime is intended for an audience of one. The killer himself.

With all due respect, you're an idiot. Are we even now? Escalation made available by opportunity, location, and happenstance is logical escalation in my book. Granted, I have never killed someone, so I don't know exactly, but imagine this:

A kid is interested in pornography, but he has no internet access, so he is used to only the scant few girly mags he catches glimpses of when he is at his uncle's house. Yet, it excites him when he can look at them. Imagine him several years later having his own apartment or college dorm room. Now he can not only go with his buddies to strip clubs and porn flicks, but he can download all kinds of things, and he his now even more into porno, only now it isn't simply unclothed women. It's much, much more. Why? Time, location, and opportunity. It's just this simple logically. If one wants to imagine love triangles and a bevy of misogynists plotting Kelly's doom, fine, but it is a leap away from logic. It may be true, but it logical progression makes more sense to me.

Cheers,

Mike

Ill remember to skip the "due respect" line next time.

Its a nice little story. However it seems to me that the man that kills both Polly and Annie did in fact have experiences prior to killing that included knife use and some anatomical knowledge. He may well have sated any cutting desires he had long before killing anyone, and he certainly already knew where to find a uterus and kidney. So whats he need to "discover" in room 13?

Perhaps he now wanted to see what an exposed femur looks like. Or how damaged he can make a face appear. Or what she looked like with a breast under her head. Or maybe he wanted to fool the police by leaving the uterus this time.

But based on his prior repetitive actions, and the senior medical opinions on the rationale for even killing Polly and Annie in the first place, I dont see the man as a curious amateur cutting so he can learn and discover.

Clearly Jack had cut into women before Mary, and knew his way around. He likely approached, definitely subdued...cut the throat and opened the midsections of Polly Annie and Kate in a virtually identical manner.

Now, 5 weeks after a killing spree that may have been 5 weeks in total, a woman is taken apart.

This death has more in common with an early Torso murder than it does with The Ripper. Her head, her arm, and her right leg at the knee are almost separated from her body. Only due to deep throat cuts were the heads of early victims nearly severed.

Best regards

[The Good Michael]

With all due respect Mike, thats nonsense.

With all due respect, you're an idiot. Are we even now? Escalation made available by opportunity, location, and happenstance is logical escalation in my book. Granted, I have never killed someone, so I don't know exactly, but imagine this:

A kid is interested in pornography, but he has no internet access, so he is used to only the scant few girly mags he catches glimpses of when he is at his uncle's house. Yet, it excites him when he can look at them. Imagine him several years later having his own apartment or college dorm room. Now he can not only go with his buddies to strip clubs and porn flicks, but he can download all kinds of things, and he his now even more into porno, only now it isn't simply unclothed women. It's much, much more. Why? Time, location, and opportunity. It's just this simple logically. If one wants to imagine love triangles and a bevy of misogynists plotting Kelly's doom, fine, but it is a leap away from logic. It may be true, but it logical progression makes more sense to me.

Cheers,

Mike

M&P,

Yes, escalation is the obvious answer. Time and place and timing allowed for what was done in each previous murder. In Kelly's case, all three things were more gracious friends of Jack.

Cheers,

Mike

With all due respect Mike, thats nonsense. Escalation isnt the term used for a radical departure from all previous traits or characteristics evident in more probable Ripper murder seen previously, Escalation is the inclusion of the same procedures-actions-patterns-traits-characteristics, ...whatever you prefer, with the inclusion of new or more advanced forms of previous acts in subsequent murders. Escalation is well observed in Polly, to Annie, and to Kate. Identical methodologies and approaches, with additional activities occurring at each consecutive murder.

Polly, throat cut-evisceration, Annie-throat cut-evisceration-organ extraction, Kate, throat cut-evisceration-organ extraction-facial injuries.

Mary is not a logical next step in any realistic "escalation"...she is found, killed and treated in death differently than all the other Canonicals. She is half their age and likely was sleeping when her killer arrives. And he gets in and gets to stay.

In Marys case, the location, the murder itself, the acts performed and the time taken all have little or nothing in common with the trail of murders that do match in most every aspect.

Best regards Mike

[Jon Guy]

Hello again

Apologies if I was been vague with my previous post but my point regarding the Boston Strangler posing a victim is that if the killer wanted to pose the body we`d know about it, like the "Happy New Year" card, the killer would have ensured the police or Doctors noted it.

I have always pondered on the ritualistic placement of the organs on the bed. Why didn`t he just bung them over his shoulder out of the way?
There was nothing on the floor other than the blood under the bed. But on consideration I believe he did this to minimise noise. Throwing things around or dropping them on the wooden floor would sound thunderous to someone in his position. Quietly putting them on the bed would be the most practical thing to do.

[Jon Guy]

Hello

An example of a victim`s body being posed by the killer was the last victim of the Boston Strangler. She was found in the same position as Kelly ( although there were no mutilations), with a broomstick pushed inside her and a Happy New Year greeting card between her feet.

[The Good Michael]

M&P,

Yes, escalation is the obvious answer. Time and place and timing allowed for what was done in each previous murder. In Kelly's case, all three things were more gracious friends of Jack.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mascara & Paranoia]

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 can see where you're coming from; in comparison to three of the previous Ripper murders, Kelly's seems like a frenzied one, whereas the others were quick and calculated. With Kelly, the killer does seem to be enjoying himself by just cutting her and cutting her more than showing the intent of removing certain organs to take with him. So from that viewpoint I can agree, but aside from that Kelly's seems to be the natural escalation you'd expect with Jack, especially in doors with a little bit more privacy and time on his hands (a clichéd and convenient argument, I know). Plus he already showed signs of upstaging his previous work on Eddowes; the facial mutilations, the removal of two organs et cetera. In a morbid way it's a 'shame' Jack didn't off Kelly in the street as like with the others, as I'm sure then we'd have no doubt as to the Ripper being her killer. Also what's a tad unbelieveable is that if it was a copycat who murdered Kelly, then not only did he do a bloody good job of portraying the Ripper, but he was also better at mutilating than the actual murderer, not to mention there being two extremely gory killers on the loose at the same time period and in the same neighbourhood; it's ridiculous to think about seriously, I'm sorry. I think it's better if we don't include those silly little conspiracies into the mix as it not only helps but also makes your argument look desperate.

You think what was done to Nichols, Chapman and perhaps Eddowes is the benchmark for what the Ripper wanted and that there could be nothing more.

All the best, Mike!
Frank

Hey again Frank,....and theres nothing wrong with disagreements. But on the above point....yes, I do. Not convinced about Kate actually, but Polly to Annie, thats the signature, MO and the whole enchilada right there in my opinion. As far as the killer that they nicknamed Jack the Ripper based on a letters Nome de plume goes.

Working, homeless, middle aged street whores. Since the only woman some feel he killed that is under 30 is Mary and she had defense wounds, seems he should have stuck with middle-aged women and using the knife only after they are subdued and semi conscious at best.

Marys killer starts with a knife, and Liz's killer is a "wham- bam-thank you-m'am" knife killer.

Annies killer.. it is felt by at least 2 senior medical personnel, killed her so he could cut her open and take her uterus, Since that's what he did, I guess that's what that killer wanted too.

Marys killer took flesh off her right thigh so he could extract her heart? He scored her face every which way so he could mutilate her abdomen? He places her kidneys and uterus and a breast under her head, cause they were in his way?

I think the big mistake is imaging that the killer of Annie needed or required anything other than what he did with her.....and thats due, in my opinion, to a subconscious link at least to a Canonical Group theory.

If Jack only killed Polly and Kate, would you say that it shows us he wanted or required more cutting time? Nope....Marys killer did though. If Jack killed Polly, Annie and Kate, where is the indication he felt indoors was a better venue, and that he was unsatisfied with his outdoor adventures? There isnt any. But when you include a last victim killed indoors, you get that anomaly. Where in Pollys and Annies murder does the killer let us know he is apt to cut a victim while she is falling and leave her untouched post-mortem? No where. But including Liz as one of his gives you that anomaly as well.

The more dissimilar events that are grouped together under one killer.....without ANY evidence that links the killings, the further you get from a specific model that was used by Jack at least 2 times in a row, with Polly and Annie. Maybe 3 consecutive times, if you exclude Liz.

The Ripper wasnt varied in his approach or actions based on those 3 at all....but he is when you include Liz and Mary.

Why would I ruin very good evidence of a specific type of fiend just so I can explain other deaths away?

All the best Frank.

[FrankO]

It seems to me the man in room 13 just cuts....the man who killed Annie cuts things out and takes them. In far less time, with focus.

Hi Mike,

Again, why did he take part of Chapman’s belly wall? What use or purpose did that serve? What purpose did the inverted v's on Eddowes' face and the severe cuts to her inner thighs serve?

A man who makes many cuts without reason is not likely Jack the Ripper.

Again, you don’t see any obvious reason in it, but that clearly shouldn’t mean it didn’t mean anything to the Ripper - if he killed MJK.

But cuts that took miliseconds, not minutes cutting around each breast to excise them so he can stick one under her head and one by her right foot. Or minutes carving flesh from one thigh, and partially from another. Why?

You can keep asking me why, but, other than suggesting what I already offered you a couple of times now, I obviously don’t know. It just seems to me that you look at it from the wrong angle. You think what was done to Nichols, Chapman and perhaps Eddowes is the benchmark for what the Ripper wanted and that there could be nothing more. I’m not sure about that and, solely based on the mutilations, I don’t have a problem seeing Kelly as a Ripper victim. So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

All the best, Mike!
Frank

I dont have any problems with people disagreeing with me Mike, or Frank, but we have to at least be using what Im saying to base a disagreement on.

So, now you are saying these things ARE random. First you spoke of planning some sort of artistic posing. Now you say random motions. You'll have to make up your mind there.

So there is no further confusion, Im saying he slashed at her with a knife when the murder began and her face is slashed with random slashes, making that timing and his emotions at that time a likely point where her face is slashed. The wounds and act suggest emotional aggression.

From Bond;

"The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features."

But there are also deliberate less emotional, more clinical and attention requiring acts, like these that Bond noted;

"The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed & the abdominal Cavity emptied of its viscera. The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table. Both breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions, the muscles down to the ribs being attached to the breasts. The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings. The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee.

Find me the anger or emotion shown clearly by the use of the knife in Annies murder. Or Pollys.

Now, let's get back to the posing... Looking at the photograph, and at the police illustration found on this site, I don't see anything beneath her head except for a pillow. Below, or under her chin as one is looking at her, are some chunks. Under could mean 'below', for all we know from Bond's report. But that's neither here nor there. If you look at Bond's report closely, you'll see that there is absolutely nothing to suggest something under than randomness. His scattering of bits, may have been utilitarian in nature. My point is, you have no leg to stand on when discussing his emotions or his "placement" of Kelly's bits. It may all be haphazard, and I'd suggest that was the case. As to "posing" which is the real point of this thread, isn't it? There is absolutely no evidence of posing, only of movement of the body. If you want to imagine otherwise, you have to bring in a lot of personal crap that there is no evidence for. Do it if you want to. I don't. I have no evidence.


All I can say Mike is that Bond report clearly shows that the kidneys, a uterus, and a breast were placed under her head, the other breast is by her right foot, and her liver is between her feet. She has a left arm that could not have been where its found when he is mutilating her, we have senior medical opinion he moved her body after cutting her throat in the upper right corner, her ruined face is propped up by the viscera under her head, and it faces the windows or door which he left by, and the next person in would enter by.

These cuts or actions are for the sake of convenience, space or access....;

"The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps."

So is this....;

"The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings."

And this;

"...the intestines by the right side & the s pleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table. "

But these are not useful in any way to his objective, which we know must have included her heart...since he takes only that with everything else cut free to choose from ;

-"The left calf showed a long gash through skin & tissues to the deep muscles & reaching from the knee to 5 ins above the ankle.
-The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee.
-Both breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions, the muscles down to the ribs being attached to the breasts.
-The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features."

Examine Annie Chapmans death again Guys. And Pollys. They are without a doubt the most probable Ripper victims.Tell me where you see the superfluous and inexplicable cuts made on their remains. Cuts not to kill, open or extract. You will find one or two. But cuts that took miliseconds, not minutes cutting around each breast to excise them so he can stick one under her head and one by her right foot. Or minutes carving flesh from one thigh, and partially from another. Why?

It seems to me the man in room 13 just cuts....the man who killed Annie cuts things out and takes them. In far less time, with focus. A man who makes many cuts without reason is not likely Jack the Ripper.

And in terms of posing, it cannot be refuted that he moved her body to the middle of the bed, that he flipped or placed her left arm over her empty abdomen, and he placed extracted and excised organs and glands under her head, which MUST have elevated it. Why?

Best regards all.

[The Good Michael]

.they are therefore personal by definition. When delivered with random backhand and forehand motions, almost certainly in an emotional state.

So, now you are saying these things ARE random. First you spoke of planning some sort of artistic posing. Now you say random motions. You'll have to make up your mind there.

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.

Ahem, who's creating a persona? I'm not the one looking for posing, decoration, and adornment based upon some idea that this was the work of someone who knew her. I don't want this killer to be Jack. I just don't see sufficient reason to claim that it was the work of someone else.


Now, let's get back to the posing... Looking at the photograph, and at the police illustration found on this site, I don't see anything beneath her head except for a pillow. Below, or under her chin as one is looking at her, are some chunks. Under could mean 'below', for all we know from Bond's report. But that's neither here nor there. If you look at Bond's report closely, you'll see that there is absolutely nothing to suggest something under than randomness. His scattering of bits, may have been utilitarian in nature. My point is, you have no leg to stand on when discussing his emotions or his "placement" of Kelly's bits. It may all be haphazard, and I'd suggest that was the case. As to "posing" which is the real point of this thread, isn't it? There is absolutely no evidence of posing, only of movement of the body. If you want to imagine otherwise, you have to bring in a lot of personal crap that there is no evidence for. Do it if you want to. I don't. I have no evidence.

Cheers,

Mike

[FrankO]

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

Hi Mike,

No worries, my Canadian friend.

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?

From what little we know, it sure seems that Cox and Kelly were soliciting on the streets too, so JtR wouldn’t have known beforehand whether his victims had a room of their own or not. If the room or its location didn’t feel right to him, he could always just abort his ‘mission’.

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?

You as well as I know there aint no real evidence, so that’s simple enough. However, the thing that I think shouldn’t be forgotten in this respect is the Ripper’s driving force: the mutilations. They aren’t called driving force for nothing. Whatever dark need was satisfied by them, those mutilations made him do the things he did. He was willing to risk his life for them.

After Eddowes the East End was flooded with police officers and vigilantes looking out for him, prostitutes were becoming more cautious and worked in groups. Furthermore, out in the streets he couldn’t solely focus on what he came for, but had to keep a keen eye and ear on his surroundings as well. These circumstances may very well have forced him to find a victim with a room of her own, so that he could more fully satisfy his craving for mutilations. I’m not stating this is what happened, but from the prospective of what drove him it’s far from far-fetched.

What definitive Jack characteristic is present in the evidence?

Deeply cut throat, abdomen opened up and emptied, vagina attacked. Organ taken, although, like with Eddowes, one that was situated higher up in the body. Face, like with Eddowes mutilated, albeit worse. Thighs, like with Eddowes, attacked, albeit worse.

You and I both know better than that, the results are just cuts....similar to the many other unsolved knife attacks.

I'm sure I must misunderstand you here, because it seems you are saying that MJK was just cut, and in a similar fashion to many other unsolved knife attacks. If I would not be misunderting you, then you would have to have a different crime scene photograph of MJK!

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

That’s what Dr. Phillips thought, yes. But he had no experience whatsoever with serial killers like the Ripper. Did or could he explain why the Ripper took a piece of Chapman’s belly wall?

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.

As long as we don’t know what actually motivated him, we can’t say which act was purposeful and which wasn't. Things he did to MJK (if it was JtR) may seem purposeless to you and me, but how can we tell it would have been without purpose to him?

As far as I’m concerned, his first interest may very well have lain in parts that made his victims women, with the most interesting and accessible part that which was hidden under the skirts. And his second interest may very well have been the complete depersonalization of his victims. Only, with his street victims he didn’t have time to do everything.

All the best, Mike!
Frank