|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 5:38 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
I thought of posting this to the "Statistical Likelihood of Multiple Jacks" thread, since there is much speculation there that the Kelly murder is significantly different from Jack's previous MO.
I happen to disagree with that for various reasons which will be familiar to readers of this board (type of target, time of night, indoor location allowing Jack to set his imagination free etc). May there be another reason, though?
I've been speculating for some time that the focus of each of Jack's trophies crept further "northwards" over time.
Leaving out the victims from whom no anatomical organs were taken, we have:
1. Chapman - uterus cleanly removed, also bladder.
2. Eddowes - top of uterus removed, but left kidney cleanly excised. Required a bit of an effort to remove the membrane covering the kidney.
3. Kelly - lower abdominal organs left behind, but heart taken away.
At the risk of sounding Cornwellish, I can imagine an internal dialogue along these lines - "Womb? Nah! Got a couple of those already. Bladder? Nah! Got one of those too. Kidney? That is so passe. Heart? Hmmm... I'd need a bit more time and a bit more room to manoeuvre, but - why not?"
Anyway, does anyone discern a purpose (however perverse or crazy) in all this? Is it conceivable that, as well as the mutilations increasing in ferocity, there is a significant pattern in the sequence of organs Jack took away with him? Was possession of a heart his aim all along? (And no, I'm not implicating the Tin Man here ;o)
Jack expended significant effort and persistence to detach the diaphragm and remove the pericardium before Mary's heart could be taken out. It's possible, but by no means conclusive, that Jack first tried other routes by which to remove the heart, possibly via the ribcage by cutting the intercostal muscles. Whether premeditated or not, however, it seems clear that Jack wanted to "bag" the heart. If the heart had been his target all along that might explain why, after the previous murders, he was compelled to kill again and again until he got what he was after.
It may also explain why he needed to commit his final crime behind closed doors.
|
Nadine
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
Gareth,
I guess all of us can only look at what information is in front of us, about this case, and try to fathom it.We all come to different conclusions. I will give you my earnest expert oppinion on his MO from every tiny detail I have studied.
I am 99% sure that the Whitechapel Killer( or JtR) did what he did to his victims to achieve one end - THAT WAS TO CREATE SHOCK. ( WHICH HE DID).
There are 2 distinct points outstanding of his MO.
1. He removed the intestines , by hand, and placed them outside the corpse.
2. He, as you stated, removed certain organs.
I dont think he had a practical use for the organs he took. He has done this to achieve one end only - shock value.
I dont believe that JtR was an Ed Gein type serial killer who kept body trophy's in his home and dressed up in woman's clothes.
His MO caused a shock to 19th century Victorian society. What ripper reasearches are doing is trying to figure out who, and why he was trying to shock.
So far, my guess is that it is related to some twisted religeous interpretation.
Hope I helped you out a bit.
Love Nadine |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
If you look at the account of Eddowes mutilations you will see that her liver was repeatedly stabbed.
If you are going to start out in the abdominal cavity and tunnel upwards to get to the heart you will have to remove the liver to get it out of your way.
Maybe the stabbing of Eddowes liver was the first tentative attempt at this?
I think he started with the abdomen because it was the easiest. There is no bony protection in the front. (Nichols)
Then he went to the pelvis (Chapman). The only bone in the front of the pelvis is the pubic arch and he found that he could also tunnel between the ischia.
With Eddowes he again entered the pelvis, but also dug deeper into the abdominal cavity than he had before. The kidneys are located at the very back behind a membrane.
Finally with Kelly he did the most difficult of all, the thorax. He couldn't get past the rib cage though I agree with you he tried because we find some of the intercostals in the region of the heart removed. He then decided to tunnel upwards from the abdomen, removing organs as he went and cutting the diaphragm to get at the cardiac cavity. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 236
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Just some random thoughts.
If he needed a heart, he would have found that it was difficult to get. Maybe he would have thought of using, say, a small axe to get past the ribcage. That could have been done faster than using a knife.
Also, he seems to have attempted decapitation. An axe would also have come in handy in such an effort.
Yet he stayed with the knife.
This tells me at least one thing, the use of the knife was more important than actually achieving any such goals.
Besides, there was a lot of unnecessary mutilations if organ removal was his main objective.
Interesting thought, but I fear we have too small a sample of Jacks work anyway to come up with anything conclusive.
Maybe Jack was never as organized as we sometimes perceive him. Maybe he just took the heart because he COULD.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 727
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
Hi all,
I tend to agree with Helge here (good points, Helge!).
I think the Ripper’s first interest lay in the female parts of the body and that, in the cases where he had more time, he just rather randomly worked on the body and did what felt good to him at the time, exploring or trying to destroy his victim’s body.
I do however see the possibility that he impulsively came up with the idea of going for the heart in Eddowes’ case and actually got it in Kelly’s. But I don’t think that that was his aim all along. Like Helge suggests, maybe he just took the heart because he could – IF he killed Kelly, of course.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 728
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
Hi Nadine,
Although it’s undeniably true that his murders created a shock to 19th century Victorian society, I’m not so sure that was his only or main aim. If it were, I think this would imply a man whose natural inclination it would be to influence other people, perhaps even a man who thrived on it. That may have been someone like Severin Klosowski, the Zodiac killer, Dennis Rader or even Walter Sickert, who, although he wasn’t a criminal, did seem to have liked shocking people with his stories and jokes. Except for perhaps the Zodiac killer, they are all men who were perfectly able to interact with other people and even needed them for their kicks.
Except for perhaps the Red Spider, Lucian Staniak, most mutilating murderers I know of, really don’t seem to have been that concerned about what other people thought of them and what their murders did to people. Not as a first concern or interest anyway. They rather lived in a world of their own and didn’t interact with people all that much. Richard Chase, Andrei Chikatilo, William MacDonald and Robert Clive Napper are examples of such killers.
I tend to think the Ripper was like these men rather than the men farther above. Even his murders themselves might indicate that he wasn’t interested in live persons. He quite possibly didn’t interact much with them, or probably not for very long and was at least mainly interested in mutilating women’s dead bodies. I think it’s quite possible that the shock value was an appreciated by-product, though.
Just my take on things.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3953
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi all,
I agree with Frank that the Ripper's main interest seems to have been the female parts of the body and the abdominal cavity.
Regardless of the role of the trophee-taking (the Ripper did take the items with him, at least in the case of Eddowes and Chapman, therefore trophees must be considered as purpose for taking the organs), the womb seems to have been the target in both cases of Eddowes and Chapman, since it was taken on both occasions. The other parts seems to have been additional treats picked at random.
Helge,
"This tells me at least one thing, the use of the knife was more important than actually achieving any such goals.
Besides, there was a lot of unnecessary mutilations if organ removal was his main objective."
Vaild thoughts, and I can absolutely go along with them, Helge.
I also agree with you that Jack's samples are too few in order to reach a firm conclusions on this. I do find it interesting, though, that the womb was cut out and taken in two of the victims.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 241
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Frank, Glenn, all
It does seem he was interested in the female parts. In my view this reflects his psyche (hatred for women in general probably), not necessarily a concious thought or desire to obtain body parts. The desire to destroy was perhaps the most pressing inclination of his twisted mind.
That said, he surely did cut out the womb on occasion. And he targeted the general area consistently.
In my mind I see this as almost certainly a subconcious desire, and a textbook example of a serial killer with a hatred for women. Much like David Berkowitz, (Son of Sam), always having trouble with the women in his life, and whose only normal sexual experience was with a prostitute that gave him a veneral disease, he said:
"I blame them for everything. Everything evil that's happened in the world--somehow goes back to them."
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 441
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
I agree with Helge et al but would add that in addition to hatred of women I see a real quality of curiosity in the mutilations.
I keep thinking of him as a young man who, yes hated but mostly FEARED women yet was ignorant of them, not able to get close to the source of mystery and fascination and who indulged his curiosity in the only way open to him.
Mags
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 828
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
If the Ripper simply wanted trophies...pardon the visual,but he could have just as easily taken an ear or finger. All the extra effort to take Eddowes kidney shows a sense of purpose and reason for the extra time spent,which meant extra risk.
He attacked the abdomen on 3 of the first 4 C5 victims and people state [ and possibly correctly..] that it has displays his desire to harm all womankind. Fair enough.
Would it not have been just as easy to remove,again pardon the visual, the breasts? Less messy,less time,less risk....and just as trophy-worthy. They are equal in their symbolic relationship to the representation of womanhood,as is the vaginal area.
I'm sure [ in my mind ] that had we caught the Ripper all those years ago,that this abdominal mutilation would have been explained [ by the Ripper himself ] more on the lines of having a definitive purpose and not the symbolic,representative meanings many feel are the reason for their being. Whether trophies...whether body parts used to make candles...or,pardon the visual one last time...possibly to just throw in the nearest loo or trash receptacle...
Thats just my opinion and I'm sticking with it.
Carry on folks.... |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3955
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Howie,
I do not think taking trophees was the whole purpose of ripping these women up, but I certainly do not think he cut out those body parts either, just to throw them in the bin. He did take them with him, and that clearly indicates that they had some meaning to him and that they were important to some extent. I find it very hard to believe that he would go through all that trouble just to put them in the trash, but for those who favour D'Onston Stephenson as a suspect, I can see why that would look like a fitting solution.
Why he took internal organs instead on a finger or an ear? Beats me and your guess is as good as mine. But we are all different, and all have different needs. Some killers take a ring, some takes an ear and some takes an internal organ. It is rather hard for us to understand such a killer's personal preferences.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 830
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Glenn:
"I find it very hard to believe that he would go through all that trouble just to put them in the trash, but for those who favour D'Onston Stephenson as a suspect, I can see why that would look like a fitting solution."
I think you have that backwards,Glenn. No one who believes or leans towards Stephenson that I know of considers the immediate disposal into the trash or the nearest outhouse after evisceration of these body parts as an option.
I mentioned the disposal into the loo as well as I could have mentioned the cannibalization of the organs or the cooking and eating of these organs as well.....I was simply being objective as to the final resting place of the organs. Any number of things,including the immediate disposal of these organs,could have happened.
People interested in Stephenson as suspect don't necessarily have the same "final resting place" for the organs...Me? I think its possible that any number of things could have occurred. I'm not partial to any one end result.
You should give D'onstonites a little more credit over there,Glenn. We all don't think the same way.
Later.......
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3956
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Hi Howie,
"I mentioned the disposal into the loo as well as I could have mentioned the cannibalization of the organs or the cooking and eating of these organs as well....."
Yes, but you didn't, did you? I thought your point was to show that the killer was not particularly interested in the organs as trophees and therefore he possibly threw them away.
If you are also considering cannibalisation a la Dahmer (which I can concur with as a possibility), then they get a completely different and more important meaning and a purpose compared to if he just would throw them in the bin.
If you believe that the organs had a low priority, then you can't have it both ways, because that would be a contradiction.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 832
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Glenn...
No sirree...I believe that the removal of the organs is just about the most important feature of the WM....other than the impact it had on society.
Stephenson-as-suspect followers more often than not see either ritual purpose in the removal of the organs or some use for the organs yet to be determined. I can't speak for any other person,but I detect a uniformity of thought regarding the organs by D'onstonites. Though some may have changed,I think by and large,people interested in Stephenson do not discount the removal of the organs for whatever personal reason they may have.
I was trying to be as objective as I could,when I mentioned some of those other scenarios. Regardless of what I think,those alternatives certainly may have happened.
The fact is,Glenn,that despite our mutual belief in the importance of the organ removal, the Ripper may have tossed them aside like an old newspaper. What we may think the Ripper[ me-Stephenson...you-undecided ] did with them could be so bizarre,that we may not have come close to their real "final resting place" and purpose...yet.
P.S. I almost forgot...D'onston mentions that the organs were eaten in a conversation to Cremers...and now you concur above its possibility....
Say it ain't so,Glenn....you have gone the way of Sudden Death have ya !?
(Message edited by howard on August 20, 2005) |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 734
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Hi Mags,
I agree with Helge et al but would add that in addition to hatred of women I see a real quality of curiosity in the mutilations.
I keep thinking of him as a young man who, yes hated but mostly FEARED women yet was ignorant of them, not able to get close to the source of mystery and fascination and who indulged his curiosity in the only way open to him.
My thoughts exactly. I think of him as a young man too, but to me his crimes also display a degree of maturity. So if someone forced me to make a guess, I'd say he was in his late rather than his early twenties.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:28 am: |
|
Ladies and Gentlemen,
What is a "trophee"? It seems to be taken as a given by Post Mordernist :-)that the meaning of the term, "TROPHEE" is understood to be, the collection and removal of body parts according to descending/ascending order.Are there any links out there to "Trophee"?
Dear Howard,
Sorry for my late reply to your suggestion I run down some ancient grimoires and search for the Lost Ritual.
Since we are on the subject, I think the Cannibal Hymn, Early Phaoronic Dynasties, might be worth a peek. It is a Cannibal Feast of the late King and the coronation of the new King. This could have been just the Queen's wish to have such ritual slaughter of husbands. I dunno. So. I was thinking. What happened to the Queen at her own Cannibal Hymn Day ? Food for thought, eh.
As Ever, Rosey :-)}} |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 847
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Thanks Rosey for remembering me...I don't think any of the suggested [ so far ] ritual meanings attached to the crimes can be proven,nor if any one suspect would even know of ones that we have seen suggested. That isn't to say that they weren't used or known by the Ripper...but its pretty hard to determine anything one way or the other. One of the alleged "signs" can be found on Google. It has 4,060 URL's and I haven't found one negative or evil use in the lot. Why should the Ripper have used a "symbol" that represented good?
Thanks again for thinking to look... |
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 5:13 am: |
|
Dear Howard,
Your last question sounds like a trick question: "Why should the Ripper have used a "symbol" that represented good?"
As Above then So Below! (Asa Buff n' Saul Bellow)
Rosey :-) |
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 5:38 am: |
|
Dear Howard,
Not so much a Coronation, nor an Apotheosis, ... rather, an Epiphany!
Rosey :-) |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 447
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Frank-- yes, I have no problem with him being in his late 20's but probably quite immature. Socially "retarded" whether because of mental health problems, family situation etc I don't know. Think of Ed Gein or Richard Chase.
Mags
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
