Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > Critics Corner + Opinion Central > Points To Ponder

Points To Ponder A forum filled with rehashed ideas, overlooked & often original theories, and newspaper articles from days gone by.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 8th, 2017, 09:25 AM   #101
Christer Holmgren
Researcher
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blomer View Post
Jon,

Christer and yourself, and many others may well be correct, its just I am not convinced at this point. And accept I am probably in a minority on that.

We (as in those of us studying this, rather than just you and me) will never all agree on things all the time.
Sometimes my view changes 180 degrees on things as I discover something new, or read something that changes my mind. Indeed I did up until say 10 years ago also accept it was all ritual; can't remember what the precise thing or things were that changed my mind, or rather made me question it.


Steve
Letīs blame Gareth for it - he has conducted a crusade with the intent to present a take where everything is a mass of sloppy cutting with no aim or intent at all. He wrote a dissertation called "By accident or by design", and I loved it to bits - back then.

Now that I think I have the key, I am much less enthusiastic about it.
__________________
"In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.
Christer Holmgren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 09:28 AM   #102
Christer Holmgren
Researcher
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blomer View Post
to Christer and all others,

there was a mistake in my post #93

it read "that it is impossible" which should have read "that it is NOT impossible",thus giving a completely different view to that intended.

I have corrected it, but some may have already read the original and be somewhat confused. Sorry to all.



Steve
I actually read it the way it was meant...
__________________
"In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.
Christer Holmgren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 09:36 AM   #103
Steve Blomer
Researcher
 
Steve Blomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
Steve Blomer: p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; }

Thatīs probably about correct.

wrote the draft in Libreoffice and forgot to remove the formating that gets copied across, must not do again

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

It may surprise you to know that I AGREE with you Christer, it is a very remote possibility.

It does not - you clearly hinted at it in your former post.

However we cannot know if Sequeira did touch anything, his testimony is not clear on just what he did before Brown arrived, and if we want to be objective historians then we at least need to consider the possibility, .

Like I said, letīs, by all means! But in my world, that does not stretch to Sequeira placing the colon piece on the ground. If he had, he would have told Brown so. In my world, I hasten to add.

Ok that is your view and it is very clear view of your thinking. The similarities you suggest are not clear to all, indeed many see far more differences than similarities.

To an extent, that of course depends on where we are coming from. We can find dissimilarities - one set was dismembered, another was not, for example.
But the similarities are really glaring, regardless of where we come from. Victims in both series DID have their abdomens opened up from sternum to pubes. That is a very clear similarity that cannot be denied.
Victims in both series had their abdomens cut away in large sections, and no matter how the flaps looked, the trait as such is very, very rare - but present in both series.
Uteri were taken out of victims in both series. That is a very clear similarity, regardless of how it looked. There WILL be differences in appearance, as indeed there was inbetween Chapman ad Eddowes in this respect. The overriding matter, though, is that eviscerators are rare, rare creatures, and taking away uteri is something that is even more rare.
Both series have victims who had rings wrenched from their fingers.

These are all clear and to an extent very, very rare similarities. Apart from the dismemberment, what else tell the torso victims apart from the Ripper ditto? Killed indoors? So was Kelly. It is secondary. More meticulous cuts? More time provided for that. A saw used? A street killer would not bring one.
So where are the things that wil outweigh the things I listed? I cannot find them, you need to help out.

I see no ritual displayed in either series of murders, neither do I see the same hand at work and of course we disagree on that.

Not to see the same hand is to be blind, Steve. Sorry, but there you are. Not to see the ritualistic element is not to see what inspired the killer, and I fully understand and respect that you have not seen it yet.

That would surely depend on the killer’s way of thinking and behaviour.

Yes, of course. I donīt think we need to state that, Steve.

If he is just slash and cut with no idea what he wants, yes I can see your view applying; if however he is more methodical and knows what he wants, I would not expect him to just throw body parts around, placing to one side is far more likely.

So where are the other parts, corroborating your stance? Why did he only take out a part of the colon) a messy business, by the way), while creating mayhem of the rest? How is it that he suddenly decided that he needed to be methodical about the colon piece? And methodical or not, why place it between body and arm instead of away from the body?

Who knows? There could be several reasons ranging from, deliberately cutting a small section for ritual as you suggest, to cutting initially at the wrong point of the intestines, to collateral damage to name but a few. Any reasons we put forward are guesswork, no more no less.

I find many of your suggestions very unlikely. If it was collateral damage, by cutting away at the abdomen and somehow succeeding to sever the colon in two places with no tension applied, I would have expected him to leave the piece where it was.
The very fact that it was cut out and removed and neatly placed between body and arm points to a consious decision on behalf of the killer. So either he decided "Ooops, cut that part away - I know, letīs lift it out, stretch it and place it parallel to the body!" or he thought "I am going to cut a part of the colon out, and then I will place it between body and arm, parallel to the body".
For some reason, there are OTHER examples in the two series of removed colon sections and organs placed around a victim. There is even an example of how the killer shaped a pillow from organs and placed the head of the victim on that pillow.

Collateral damage, Steve? We cannot be sure, Steve? Nothing to see here, Steve?

And guesswork? Yes, but I prefer a logical guess to a misguided one.

Firstly your point about cutting under/without tension does depend on which of the two cuts is made first to the colon, if it is still attached to the body it is not that difficult to perform that cut if the knife is sharp.

Yes, if a knife is sharp enough you can slice a tomato wothout holding it with your free hand. But how likely is it that this was what happened...?

However I concur that the idea of double collateral damage is unlikely.

It is, rather.

Given that he removed the small intestines too, it is indeed probably that he intend to remove all of the bits he could see.

But he could have cut the colon and thrown it over the shoulder too. Instead, it seems he deliberately chose to cut away just a two-feet part of the colon, and far from flinging it over the shoulder of Eddowes, he took care to place it neatly stretched out between body and arm.
Remember Kellyīs liver? It was placed between her feet. Other organs were under her head, etcetera, telling us that instead of throwing them on the floor to provide free space on the bed, the killer left the organs in different places, one of which was under the victims head!
There was a bedside table where other parts of the victim were placed, so apparently, the killer chose to move some of the bi-products away from the bed, whereas he left others on it.
A story is told here, Steve. We can either listen and try to understand it or we can say it was all just a fluke, with no intention at all behind it.

I have no issue with the colon was deliberately cut and removed, nor that it was placed rather than just thrown away.


It is what this means where we part company on this issue .

Well, you donīt know that, do you, since you have not had my full explanation to it. It is an explanation that includes the 1873 victim, for example, where damage was done that is in line totally with what happened to Kelly, to Chapman, to Eddowes... and I believe I have the common denominator.

There is no way to know what Brown may or may not have meant.

Since he said what he meant, I think we can be sure of it: the colon piece was placed between arm and body, apparently by design. That was what Brown said, and it was what he meant.

To place something in a particular place does not mean there is a reason other than simple practicality for such.

True. Itīs not until we have parallel cases that we can see the pattern. And it is not until we see the inspiration for what he did that we can see how it came about.

I place my glass down a few inches away from my laptop, to give me space and to ensure that if it spills it does not contact said laptop, its done by design, but there is no ritual involved at all, it is placed in a spot because it is practical.

Iīm sure that is correct. I treat my coffe cup in the exact same manner and with no ritual element involved. Then again, drinking water and coffee is less likely to carry a deep meaning to us, is it not? Murder, however, carries a very deep meaning to a serialist. It is likely the most important thing he does, and it will be laden with some sort of meaning to him. I think we can agree on that.

Is your view viable? Of course it is!

Old hat. Already knew that!

However that is all it is at present, you have an hypothesis, it passes the first test in that it is impossible, now it needs further evidence which I do not see at present to prove it.

Thatīs because I am not showing you the evidence. But if you take a keen look at the details of the 1873 murder, if you ask yourself what the mask/scalp was about, why the killer sawed off the things and shoulders while disarticulating the rest of the joints, if you add Chapman and her abdominal flaps, the excision of her uterus, Eddowesī organ loss and the colon piece, Kellys organs, placed on her bed and like a pillow under her neck - such things, then you may just be able to see why this appalling killer did what he did.

Look at all the things he did not NEED to do as such to take a body apart. Then try to see how they fit together - because they DO fit together!

Christer,

some interesting points, and yes we all have out own views on what was behind the attacks, why he attacked as he did.
My problem with your take on it is that I obviously have no idea what you believe the "inspiration" was, and therefore am in no position to evaluate it, as I am sure you realise.


Steve
Steve Blomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 09:39 AM   #104
Christer Holmgren
Researcher
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blomer View Post
wrote the draft in Libreoffice and forgot to remove the formating that gets copied across, must not do again




Christer,

some interesting points, and yes we all have out own views on what was behind the attacks, why he attacked as he did.
My problem with your take on it is that I obviously have no idea what you believe the "inspiration" was, and therefore am in no position to evaluate it, as I am sure you realise.


Steve
I do and I apologize for it.
__________________
"In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.
Christer Holmgren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 10:38 AM   #105
Steve Blomer
Researcher
 
Steve Blomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
I do and I apologize for it.

One point I think I need to clarify is the use of the word ritual. You have explained this is as in pattern rather than some religious sense.
While it is clear the various tissues are placed about the body and in Kelly some are on on the bed and as you say under the head while others are on the table; I see no evidence of objective.

To me ritual implies predetermination, It is all carefully thought out .
I see no evidence for this and instead see a killer "playing" impromptu so to speak.
Perhaps you evidence when published may well change my mind. Time will tell.

Steve
Steve Blomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 02:05 PM   #106
Christer Holmgren
Researcher
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blomer View Post
One point I think I need to clarify is the use of the word ritual. You have explained this is as in pattern rather than some religious sense.
While it is clear the various tissues are placed about the body and in Kelly some are on on the bed and as you say under the head while others are on the table; I see no evidence of objective.

To me ritual implies predetermination, It is all carefully thought out .
I see no evidence for this and instead see a killer "playing" impromptu so to speak.
Perhaps you evidence when published may well change my mind. Time will tell.

Steve
I am indeed not speaking about any religious ritual, Steve. And the ritualistic behaviour I have in mind could be expressed in many ways - if the liver had not been found between the feet of Kelly but instead by the side of her thorax, I would have been equally inclined to recognize the kind of ritual I am speaking of.
However, if the limbs of the 1873 victim had been sawed off at the knees and elbows and disarticulated at the hip and the shoulder, instead of the other way around, that would break up the pattern.

If I make no sense at all, I can understand that... but the sense is there, I promise.
__________________
"In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.
Christer Holmgren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 03:08 PM   #107
Steve Blomer
Researcher
 
Steve Blomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
I am indeed not speaking about any religious ritual, Steve. And the ritualistic behaviour I have in mind could be expressed in many ways - if the liver had not been found between the feet of Kelly but instead by the side of her thorax, I would have been equally inclined to recognize the kind of ritual I am speaking of.
However, if the limbs of the 1873 victim had been sawed off at the knees and elbows and disarticulated at the hip and the shoulder, instead of the other way around, that would break up the pattern.

If I make no sense at all, I can understand that... but the sense is there, I promise.

I await any developments with interest

Steve
Steve Blomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022