Appearances

[sepiae]

Hi everyone,

although I can be certain that this one will drown in the current waves of shawlomania, I was trying to get my thoughts into order regarding appearances of a number of aspects, issues that appear obvious to some, others that invite to conclusions because they seem to speak to us.
I've attached it as a pdf, and it is really, really short - no, not really, but if 17 pages is more than a piffle for you, it's sectioned, and some of the sections are short. I tackled:
- staging [trying to inject uncertainty into the impression that victims had
been purposefully displayed]
- symbolism [mainly focusing on the role of organs to us]
- the Goulston St. Graffito [the one I'm joyfully biased about]
- boldness [trying to contradict the certainty about the killer having been
bold]
- victimology [ending with a demand that we should take 'prostitutes' out of
it]
- escalation [a hypothesis I myself subscribe to, so it has to be re-examined]
- myth-creation [concentrating on the myths surrounding Tumblety, for which
I'd fallen myself, which shall serve as an example for how
quickly we not merely jump, but fall into conclusions]

Here I'd invite to [probably once again] debate certainty about impressions, either concerning the topics treated in the essay or others. I'd be happy to outline my positions in case it's just too much to read. Just briefly:
- there's no evidence that any of the victims were staged - incl. Mary Kelly. If your impression is that she was a macabre 'greeting', remember that her facing you is a result of the particular photograph, the choice of where it was taken from.
- The impression of the perp as having been bold has to be weighed against the possibility of all aspects of the crimes having been dictated by circumstance, as well as the possibility that he was simply careless [and lucky].
- While it is already somewhat dubious to define women who out of sheer economical desperation resort to prostitution, but rather try and find other work, as prostitutes, there's also no evidence for the perp singling out prostitutes - all we know for sure where his victims are concerned is they were a) women, b) poor and c) out in the streets at the time. No reason to assume he would have spared a woman who wasn't out to earn her doss.
- Tumblety was a victim of other people's problems with his sexual orientation, and his story should make us cautious about all other stories.
- As for symbolism, escalation and the GSG I'm afraid you'd have to read the thing [the GSG-section is short and was fun to write].

Now feel welcome to take it away

[GUT]

I've downloaded it, but will take a while to absorb it then I'll reply.

[sepiae]

I've downloaded it, but will take a while to absorb it then I'll reply.

Hi GUT,

thanks, and take all the time you need and want

[Bridewell]

t

there's also no evidence for the perp singling out prostitutes

Hi Sepiae,

No there isn't. All these women either worked as prostitutes or were acting in such a way as might suggest that they were prostitutes. The only item which indicates that they were killed because they were (or appeared to be) prostitutes is the "Dear Boss" letter which is almost universally dismissed (probably rightly) as a hoax. It is, in my view, as likely that they were killed because they were (or in Chapman's case appeared to be) drunk - and therefore less cautious and more vulnerable than they otherwise would be.

[Errata]

Hi everyone,

although I can be certain that this one will drown in the current waves of shawlomania, I was trying to get my thoughts into order regarding appearances of a number of aspects, issues that appear obvious to some, others that invite to conclusions because they seem to speak to us.
I've attached it as a pdf, and it is really, really short - no, not really, but if 17 pages is more than a piffle for you, it's sectioned, and some of the sections are short. I tackled:
- staging [trying to inject uncertainty into the impression that victims had
been purposefully displayed]
- symbolism [mainly focusing on the role of organs to us]
- the Goulston St. Graffito [the one I'm joyfully biased about]
- boldness [trying to contradict the certainty about the killer having been
bold]
- victimology [ending with a demand that we should take 'prostitutes' out of
it]
- escalation [a hypothesis I myself subscribe to, so it has to be re-examined]
- myth-creation [concentrating on the myths surrounding Tumblety, for which
I'd fallen myself, which shall serve as an example for how
quickly we not merely jump, but fall into conclusions]

Here I'd invite to [probably once again] debate certainty about impressions, either concerning the topics treated in the essay or others. I'd be happy to outline my positions in case it's just too much to read. Just briefly:
- there's no evidence that any of the victims were staged - incl. Mary Kelly. If your impression is that she was a macabre 'greeting', remember that her facing you is a result of the particular photograph, the choice of where it was taken from.
- The impression of the perp as having been bold has to be weighed against the possibility of all aspects of the crimes having been dictated by circumstance, as well as the possibility that he was simply careless [and lucky].
- While it is already somewhat dubious to define women who out of sheer economical desperation resort to prostitution, but rather try and find other work, as prostitutes, there's also no evidence for the perp singling out prostitutes - all we know for sure where his victims are concerned is they were a) women, b) poor and c) out in the streets at the time. No reason to assume he would have spared a woman who wasn't out to earn her doss.
- Tumblety was a victim of other people's problems with his sexual orientation, and his story should make us cautious about all other stories.
- As for symbolism, escalation and the GSG I'm afraid you'd have to read the thing [the GSG-section is short and was fun to write].

Now feel welcome to take it away

I read the sections that appeal to me (in the sense that Ghoulston St Graffitto is not something I'm going to continue to argue about.)

I have some questions about your definitions, because perspective in this case is important. You talk about staging. And staging can have two meanings, and two perspectives. Staging can be rearranging a corpse for the purpose of shock or meaning (the way one stages a play). Staging can also be any arrangement of the corpse for the purpose of the specific aspects of the murder (like staging a military assault). One perspective of staging can be what the killer does for the viewers benefit, another perspective is what he does for his own benefit. The pictures Dahmer took of his victims were not for public consumption, yet he clearly staged the bodies.

I agree that the bodies were not staged for public consumption. I think they were staged for his facility, and that didn't simply mean flipping them on their backs. All the mutilated women had one leg up with the knee bent. Usually splayed to one side. That is not normal, bodies don't fall like that, and rolling a woman on her back would not cause this. He brought the leg up into that bent position. Which does nothing for his access to the abdomen or the pelvis. So why did he do that? I think it was to gain access to the vaginal canal to find the uterus in the body cavity. Which would be for his utility. But if not for that reason, then it was still important to him to do it for some reason. Not for pubic view, it has no symbolism and does not create more shock or fright. He did it for himself. Maybe that's what his fantasy of a dead woman looked like. Maybe he was copying his first kill. But it was for his benefit. And I think that is still staging.

And when discussing symbolism, we still have to look at perspective. Are we talking about what has meaning to him, or are we talking about him sending a message to us through symbolism? And the two aren't mutually exclusive, so that can complicate things.

[curious4]

View

Hello Errata

Did you mean public view?

Best wishes

C 4

[Errata]

Hello Errata

Did you mean public view?

Best wishes

C 4

well, yes and no. None of these murders were really in public view. It's not like he dropped them in Trafalgar Square where everyone can go and look. He seemed to prefer contained areas, and only so many people are going to either wander through or gather round. I suppose he could have been targeting cops. They were really the only ones guaranteed to see his work. He's certainly not looking to shock good housewives, they wouldn't have been at the scenes. So if he's aiming for public view, he aimed poorly. If he was aiming for simple external view, then it works out because certainly people other than him saw the bodies. But in truth, not many people. Really the only public consumption was through newspaper articles. There were no photos or even realistic drawings, so no visual message would have translated.

[sepiae]

vulnerable

t

Hi Sepiae,

No there isn't. All these women either worked as prostitutes or were acting in such a way as might suggest that they were prostitutes. The only item which indicates that they were killed because they were (or appeared to be) prostitutes is the "Dear Boss" letter which is almost universally dismissed (probably rightly) as a hoax. It is, in my view, as likely that they were killed because they were (or in Chapman's case appeared to be) drunk - and therefore less cautious and more vulnerable than they otherwise would be.

Hi Bridewell,

sorry for late reply, wasn't online.
Yes, I completely agree. I'm not sure if a woman would have been safer when sober, though. I think all we know about the victims is: they were women, they were poor and they were out in the streets [except Kelly]. We only know about 2 of them with some certainty that they were out at the time because they were looking for clients as they needed to earn their doss-money and stated so. It is already a problem for me to accept terming the women as prostitutes, as they would all do other things before resorting to selling their bodies, how would it be for the perp, having no information about them [if that is so]? Someone soliciting would open up a good opportunity for him, outside that there's simply no evidence that would point to him sparing a nanny or clerk who'd been outside for whatever reason.

[sepiae]

Ghoulston St Graffitto is not something I'm going to continue to argue about.

staging can have two meanings, and two perspectives. Staging can be rearranging a corpse for the purpose of shock or meaning (the way one stages a play). Staging can also be any arrangement of the corpse for the purpose of the specific aspects of the murder (like staging a military assault). One perspective of staging can be what the killer does for the viewers benefit, another perspective is what he does for his own benefit.

All the mutilated women had one leg up with the knee bent. Usually splayed to one side. That is not normal, bodies don't fall like that, and rolling a woman on her back would not cause this. He brought the leg up into that bent position. Which does nothing for his access to the abdomen or the pelvis. So why did he do that? I think it was to gain access to the vaginal canal to find the uterus in the body cavity. Which would be for his utility. But if not for that reason, then it was still important to him to do it for some reason...it was for his benefit. And I think that is still staging.

And when discussing symbolism, we still have to look at perspective. Are we talking about what has meaning to him, or are we talking about him sending a message to us through symbolism? And the two aren't mutually exclusive, so that can complicate things.

Hi Errata,
apologies for the late reply, wasn't online.

GSG: yes, and don't have anything further to add myself, besides that within the whole matter, which is very dark and sad, this is one of the very few side stories that have actually become quite funny, so I enjoyed airing, and it is very short

staging: you're quite right, ofc. A killer doing an arrangement for his own private benefit is staging. I didn't delve much into that, all I could do is mention the possibility. I'm not convinced anything is pointing to that, though [see below].
Staging as I referred to it above and in the essay regards the impression the public might have, and that includes us. Suggestions of purposeful arrangement are frequently made, and I don't say off the bat that they're wrong. But I'd be cautious where other models might be at least equally convincing.

legs up, knees bent: I believe both legs were up and bent, though not exactly equally - a perfect alignment would actually be a better indicator for purpose [I've argued thus in regards to Mary Kelly's head's position, as some see her face turned in-rooms as being addressed to those who'd come and see - only 3 ways the head could have ended up, especially with a deep cut to the neck, face up, face left, face right. The head of a dead person is pretty loose, the body was submitted to a lot of cutting, so the head ending up face up would indicate final arranging. Left or right is depending on the whole body's tendency].
You offered the explanation in sense of the practical yourself. Naturally, no, a body doesn't end up this way when merely left to fall or glide to the ground. And mind you, I'm not at all saying that you're wrong. The question is important, because if we could establish whether it was 'technical' purpose or the purpose of an inner image on behalf of the perpetrator, then we'd have learned a great deal about him.
Until then it should be an imperative to ask oneself about an appearance: does the impression mandate my particular explanation or am I assembling a construct of reason to fit with my impression?
No matter what, when we find a victim like this it will look to us as if we're 'being addressed.' I understand that what you're suggesting might be him posing the victims for his own very private reasons, but a) the effect on us would be the same, and b), much more importantly, we'd still have to ask ourselves the same question regarding appearance.
My own answer is simply that we have no evidence to support anything but the 'technical' purpose. Polly Nichols had not had her uterus removed, but we don't know whether he didn't intend to.
That doesn't mean one should disregard the option of staging, neither staging for himself or for an audience to come. It means we should be cautious if an impression might threaten to overwhelm us.

symbolism: oh yes, I completely agree, precisely as you say. I'd add that where our interpretation doesn't fit the truth [in most cases that'll remain open], and in others where it does, the symbolism is first named by us, we are the ones seeing it, perhaps creating, inventing it. Symbolism in context with the organs is one of many examples. In principle it is as with the above: caution is needed not to get fixated.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

symbolism: oh yes, I completely agree, precisely as you say. I'd add that where our interpretation doesn't fit the truth [in most cases that'll remain open], and in others where it does, the symbolism is first named by us, we are the ones seeing it, perhaps creating, inventing it. Symbolism in context with the organs is one of many examples. In principle it is as with the above: caution is needed not to get fixated.

I think that it is extremely difficult to not see symbolism when a killer takes a heart. And not just ripping it out of the chest, but a careful extraction. We see the heart as targeted. Male killer, female victim... how can we not see symbolism? I mean, it's become a known trope in killer movies where the killer takes the heart and in the end it turns out he did it because she wouldn't give it to him when he wanted it and the detectives look at the killer mournfully while the killer sobs with a broken heart etc...

And of course actual murderers have done that. Not serial killers as much, but a guy who kills his girlfriend etc? Yeah. They do that.

But there is a difference between symbolism and significance. I think taking the heart was significant. I think it meant something to the killer. But a symbol is an action or representation with an agreed upon meaning. Upside down yellow triangle sign means warning. Swastika means nazis. The gesture of waving your hand in front of your throat means "cut it out". Symbols. The goal of a symbol is to communicate meaning. I don't think the killer was trying to communicate, therefor, not a symbol. Did he do it because the heart is a symbol of love and devotion? Maybe. I think so. Did he take her heart because of what it symbolized to him? Maybe. I think so. Was he telling anybody anything about this murder or this woman by taking her heart? Maybe. But I don't think so. I don't think it was a symbol. I think it was significant.

[Michael W Richards]

t

Hi Sepiae,

No there isn't. All these women either worked as prostitutes or were acting in such a way as might suggest that they were prostitutes. The only item which indicates that they were killed because they were (or appeared to be) prostitutes is the "Dear Boss" letter which is almost universally dismissed (probably rightly) as a hoax. It is, in my view, as likely that they were killed because they were (or in Chapman's case appeared to be) drunk - and therefore less cautious and more vulnerable than they otherwise would be.

Wrong.

Only Mary Kelly and Mary Ann Nichols were essentially full time prostitutes, and there is no evidence that Liz Stride, Kate Eddowes or Mary Kelly were actively soliciting on the night they met their murderer(s). Sure, many like you believe it regardless of the facts, but the facts are that ONLY Polly and Annie were actively soliciting at the time, by virtue of witnesses who they spoke with on the nights in question.

If you take out the assumptions, then you have the far more interesting and puzzling questions...for one, what was the motive for murder in those other cases? In at least 3 of the Canonicals we know that their long time relationships ended, or were compromised, within 10 days of their murders, and in one case, we know a victim was seeing another man while living with one that was ejected within that 10 day window before her death. Far more murders are caused by some kind of temporary romantic insanity than by clinical insanity.

If the victims were not drunk, (Liz and Kate), and they were not soliciting, then its highly unlikely that they were chosen for murder by someone who preyed upon women who were soliciting while drunk or infirmed. Since the injuries vary greatly within the "Canonicals", it would seem that the concept of a Ripper relies heavily on speculation and assumptions, not on physical or circumstantial evidence....you know, the stuff that actually proves something.

Cheers

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Prostitution could be incidental.
The time of the murders of Nichols and Chapman was very late, early in the morning. Probability of a woman alone at this hour was a prostitute was higher.

Now, reading police reports, newspapers and dissertations, it seems that women stayed inside late at night after the murder of Chapman. JtR killed much earlier his next two victims, but he was "probably" spotted by witnesses just before. If there was a chance he would have attacked a woman who did not prostitute herself, it was that night. Apparently, Eddowes as a prostitute is a debatable topic also.

He waits a month. Despite letters and media frenzy, I suppose people start feeling a bit safer (I think there is also twice as many policemen in the streets).

So he starts hunting later, and hits the jackpot when he finds one who has her own room. Or maybe she was targetted after being on the prowl for a few nights.

More knowledgeable people can certainly deconstruct what I said here. I'm a newbie.

[Michael W Richards]

Prostitution could be incidental.

With all due respect, it could also be pivotal to the Victimology and Methodology. We don't know, that's my point, along with the point that assumptions about whom among the rest were actual prostitutes and prostituting solves nothing.....and Im also sure that hundreds of women in Whitechapel were forced at some point to sell themselves, that's why the term Unfortunate surfaced.

Single, unemployed and desperate, and among the Canonicals, we know that Liz Stride was getting regular decent work leading up to her death.

Cheers

[RockySullivan]

Was there any delivery man who worked that time of the morning that might go into mitre square daily to drop of milk/newspapers anything?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

With all due respect, it could also be pivotal to the Victimology and Methodology. We don't know, that's my point, along with the point that assumptions about whom among the rest were actual prostitutes and prostituting solves nothing.....and Im also sure that hundreds of women in Whitechapel were forced at some point to sell themselves, that's why the term Unfortunate surfaced.

Single, unemployed and desperate, and among the Canonicals, we know that Liz Stride was getting regular decent work leading up to her death.

Cheers

I totally agree with you. When I said "could be incidental" is simply that I don't want to rule out that the ripper wasn't specifically targeting prostitutes.

Like, if he had kill only men, in the dock area, and his 5 victims were dockers, I wouldn't say that he targeted dockers necessarily, because there are several of them in said area, but there is a high probability.

I hope I was clearer.