motivation

[smezenen]

Hi M&P,
Snapping a neck doesn't quickly drain two or three points of blood from the body, making any subsequent evisceration slightly less messy than it might otherwise have been. Deep throat-cuts manage to achieve that quite well and, I suspect, are quicker to inflict than a snapped throat, and more likely to succeed. Whoosh - and it's all over, bar the voiceless gurgling.

Here is another thought that goes along with what you are saying. Anyone who has hunted large game will understand why he cuts the throat before cutting into the rest of the body. I have always thought Jack had hunting experience becouse the first thing a hunter does once he has his prey on the ground is cut the throat to quickly drain the blood so that dressing the animal out isnt so messy.

[lynn cates]

Bride of Frankenstein

Hello. Organ harvesting in the case of Polly and Annie for medical use? I seem dimly aware of hearing something about that somewhere (Sugden's book?).

This is reminiscent of the old B/W movie, The Bride of Frankenstein, where Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) realizes he needs a new heart for the Monster's intended female companion. He decides to look for a victim at an accident hospital. He dispatches Karl (Dwight Frye) with the comment, "What we need is a victim of sudden death. Can you do it?" What an equivocation!

Needless to say, Karl goes the direct route. So perhaps the "Ripper" is someone who misunderstands directions and goes the direct route for uteri? Interesting!

LC

[Monty]

I mean, I don't know the Victorians' usual method of murder (though come to think of it I think it probably was by cutting throats), but wouldn't it have been quicker to have snapped their necks or something? Especially if he was believed to have throttled a few of them anyway.

Having trawled the newspapers of the time, the most common method of murder was stabbing or a good kicking.

Monty

[Ben]

We have a confirmed story that a teaching hospital was indeed approached the previous year for samples of uteri to be sent with research papers to America

The details were not confirmed, unfortunately, Mike.

In fact, if anything, they were vehemently denied by the British Medical Journal, who upon receipt of information directly from the two medical schools concerned, wrote a short article emphasising that the information communicated by Baxter was "not at all of the nature the public has been led to believe". As such, the whole "American seeking uteri" story could be bogus for all we know, and it certainly hasn't been confirmed.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

The details were not confirmed, unfortunately, Mike.

In fact, if anything, they were vehemently denied by the British Medical Journal, who upon receipt of information directly from the two medical schools concerned, wrote a short article emphasising that the information communicated by Baxter was "not at all of the nature the public has been led to believe". As such, the whole "American seeking uteri" story could be bogus for all we know, and it certainly hasn't been confirmed.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I believe one of the two schools mentioned did in fact corroborate the story that was in the press, one flatly denied it, and that the account that confirmed the story vehemently denied having anything more to do with that "doctor".

Which to me leaves us with a man seeking to obtain uteri and finding himself unable to do so via "traditional" channels one year before the first 2 of 5 women alleged killed by Jack seemed to have that organ as a target by the killer...perhaps the motivation for the murder itself.

The equivalent of 1500L Sterling today to someone desperately poor, perhaps with family to take care of, ......and all they have to do is kill a middle aged Unfortunate who has no "life" to speak of anyway. Fallen women...lost to the church, aside from Liz, and a scourge in the neighborhood. These women were for the most part reviled by poor and rich citizens alike.

In the first 2 murders, its a legtimate possibility, and if you believe it sort of science-fiction Lynn, read up on the famous pair who give us the precedent. They dug women up, killed them, butchered them....and for economic gain. Just like the fictional Sweeney Todd does with his meat pies......he kills, and sells. Sweeney may have been based loosely on these cases...I think the story first appeared after the mid-1800's, after 1835 I believe,.....which is when the murders by Burke and Hare occurred.

I think people forget what some people will do for money when faced with oblivion.

Its not a consistent theme throughout the "series", and thats why for me, there is no "series" beyond 2 or 3 victims at this time.

Cheers Ben, Lynn, all.

[lynn cates]

thoughts on the harvest

Hello. Science fiction? Not a bit of it! I merely observed a reminiscence. Karl thought he was being asked to kill. Similarly, this fellow after the uteri mistook how he was to retrieve them. (Another similarity; Monty Python and the liver donor skit.)

I presume such a scenario (which I find perfectly plausible) exempts C3-C5. C3 had no organs removed and C4's facial mutilations seem redundant to organ harvestation. Of course, C5 had some organs missing, but with the widespread carnage inflicted, she seems outside the pale.

BUT, couple C4 with her cryptic remark, "I'm here to collect my reward money--I may know who Jack is" and the facial mutilations could be viewed as revenge for a possible blackmail. (Just thinking out loud.)

LC

[perrymason]

Hello. Science fiction? Not a bit of it! I merely observed a reminiscence. Karl thought he was being asked to kill. Similarly, this fellow after the uteri mistook how he was to retrieve them. (Another similarity; Monty Python and the liver donor skit.)

I presume such a scenario (which I find perfectly plausible) exempts C3-C5. C3 had no organs removed and C4's facial mutilations seem redundant to organ harvestation. Of course, C5 had some organs missing, but with the widespread carnage inflicted, she seems outside the pale.

BUT, couple C4 with her cryptic remark, "I'm here to collect my reward money--I may know who Jack is" and the facial mutilations could be viewed as revenge for a possible blackmail. (Just thinking out loud.)

LC

I have my own problems with C4 Lynn ....the closest people to Kate Eddowes at the time of her murder are all current or retired cops, some 7 or 8 within the immediate area... 3 detectives a few alleys away looking for who knows what....2 PC's that look into or enter the square,.....2 nightwatchmen that are retired police, one City cop who lives in #3 in the square,......and she is killed less than 45 minutes after she left the police station.

My bet is what you hinted at...she wasnt killed by Jack, she was shut up permanently by someone else....and used to remind others what happens to people when they stick their nose where it doesnt belong.

Cheers Lynn

[Flagg]

Hello. Although there are many threads dealing with specific aspects of the Whitechapel killer's motivation, I'd like to see a listing with all possible motives.

Please discuss what you think the Ripper's motive/s in killing the canonical five was/were. (If you see some of the killings as the work of another, please include that. Eg, you may think that Stride was killed by a jealous boyfriend but the others were part of a conspiracy, etc.)

Here's a partial list of motives:

1. Misogyny.
2. Sexual gratification in killing.
3. Sexual gratification in knifing--killing merely expedient.
4. Organ harvesting.
5. Revenge against society.
6. Revenge against women
7. Revenge against mother.
8. Revenge against prostitutes (mother was one).
9. Revenge against prostitutes (got an std).
10. Proving superiority to others.
11. Playing a mental game with police.
12. Satanic ritual.
13. Masonic ritual.
14. Royal conspiracy.
15. Jewish conspiracy.
16. Anti-semitic conspiracy.
17. Arsenic poisoning.
18. To scare a significant other.
19. To do the Lord's work in punishing fallen women.
20. Other (please specify).

lynn cates

Great question! I tend to think that The Ripper killed just because he enjoyed it. The big thrill for him was the struggle and eventual overwhelming of his victims,to assert his dominance. The more they fought him, the more he liked it. Richard Ramirez enjoyed the terror he caused and I think The Ripper was similar.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

We have a confirmed story that a teaching hospital was indeed approached the previous year for samples of uteri ... Needless to say, that motivation cannot be attributed with supporting evidence to the murders of Liz Stride, Kate Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly.

Why not Eddowes? Because he took a kidney as well as the uterus? On that basis, we should dismiss Chapman also because he took a piece of her belly wall... and Nichols, for that matter, from whom he seems to have removed no organs at all.

As far as motives go, the "uteri for profit" idea seems to be a busted flush for those reasons alone - not to mention the fact that there were much less risky means of going about securing the "prize" in the first place.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,
Why not Eddowes? Because he took a kidney as well as the uterus? On that basis, we should dismiss Chapman also because he took a piece of her belly wall... and Nichols, for that matter, from whom he seems to have removed no organs at all.

As far as motives go, the "uteri for profit" idea seems to be a busted flush for those reasons alone - not to mention the fact that there were much less risky means of going about securing the "prize" in the first place.

The risks didnt deter the aforementioned murderers Sam, the potential gains far outweighed them in their minds....and as for Kate, she did have a partial uterus taken so thats another factor that may favor a Jack for her too. As I said, to me, there is reason to wonder about Kates inclusion based on other circumstantial evidence... and what significance if any the fact that she was murdered while at least figuratively surrounded by policeman may have.

Nichols is the only victim that rationally suggests incompletion....particularly when juxtaposed with the very next act the same killer commits, and that opinion was given by the attending physicians of both Polly and Annie at Pollys Inquest. There are reasons to suggest that the killer of Polly got what he wanted from the next victim.

The thing about Kate is, if her uterus was his goal, then he didnt know where it was or how to extract it....something that is countered by the fact that he removes her kidney through her front, and is not what we would expect of the man that took Annies uterus cleanly out....with a minimum of superfluous slices.

And I think it goes without saying that medical research was very prominent science at the time...and that required specimens..something that could be very hard to obtain through legitimate channels.

All the best Gareth

[Sam Flynn]

The thing about Kate is, if her uterus was his goal, then he didnt know where it was or how to extract it....something that is countered by the fact that he removes her kidney through her front

It's not countered by it at all, Mike. Two little stories:

A. If you're a nutjob bent on extracting organs, and you find yourself in the open with very little time to spare, you wouldn't attempt to perform a nephrectomy via keyhole surgery through the left flank. You're just going to rip open the belly, shove the entrails as much out of the way as possible, and cut the kidney out that way. You might cut through the descending colon in the process, but that's a more tolerable risk than that of getting caught in the act.

B. If you're a nutjob bent on extracting organs, and you find yourself at dawn in the back-yard of a crowded house with very little time to spare, you wouldn't attempt to perform an hysterectomy by any textbook means either. You're just going to hack open the belly, shove the entrails as much out of the way as possible, and cut out the uterus that way. You might cut through the descending colon in the process...

A) is what happened at Mitre Square;

B) is what happened at 29 Hanbury Street.

There is no difference in approach.

and is not what we would expect of the man that took Annies uterus cleanly out....with a minimum of superfluous slices.

He hacked the left side of her belly out in three flaps, cut through her poop-chute, and made off with a womb, a portion of bladder, and a swatch of belly wall with a bit of navel attached. If that's a "minimum of superfluous slices", I'd hate to think what a surfeit would look like.

And I think it goes without saying that medical research was very prominent science at the time...and that required specimens..something that could be very hard to obtain through legitimate channels.

I dare say that digging up graves or sneaking into a mortuary or chapel of rest was a far less risky means of obtaining such samples than killing women on the street in the most densely-populated part of London, after having attracted a swarm of police and public attention onto yourself.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I believe one of the two schools mentioned did in fact corroborate the story that was in the press

They corroborated the detail that a doctor had been requesting organ specimens, but as the British Medical Journal observed, the nature and origin of the request bore very little resemblance to anything Baxter claimed. Certainly, there was never any corroboration of any uteri or dodgy American Tumblety-types playing any role. On the contrary, it was observed that "the person in question was of the highest reputability and exceedingly well accredited to this country by the best authorities in his own".

Little wonder, really, that Baxter gave up on the idea after a very short time.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Sam, Ben,......

For Sam.....The overriding feeling that one gets when reading the medical opinions on the murders of Polly and Annie is that they believed the man in question had surgical knowledge....not just anatomical,.... and the "sloppy" process that is used to extract organs was based on the short time allotted and the demands of the venue chosen,... not on a sloppy, unskilled murderer. Considering the risks, the light and the time, Id say thats more than fair.

What was done in Mitre Square was remarkable considering that if Lawende saw Kate, her killer had around 8 minutes tops to get her to the location and do everything he does and then leave. You may say thats just what the killer of the first two may have done. True. But why he kills is the issue here.

A killer may change weapons, targets, MO, his/her appearance, locations, strategies....but from what I can see, they dont change why they started killing in the first place. Why they kill is constant. It may escalate and be harder to satisfy as the killings increase, but the motivator is still the same.

Why Polly and Annie were killed, in the estimation of the men who examined them, was to obtain abdominal organs from them, and based on the successful extraction in the second murder, more specifically,... the uterus.

No other Canonical is killed for that organ. Even though it was extracted partially once, and it was extracted and left behind another time, ... it was never again, in the opinion of the men that examined the women, a motivator or reason for any other Canonical death.

Ben, .......the actual nuts and bolts of the story isnt what Im after here, its a recognition that within 12 months prior to the murders commencement an actual verified event took place that involved a request to buy uteri. In the opinion of the 2 men that examined the first 2 Canonicals, they were killed so the killer could obtain that same organ...in one case it was probably foiled due to the venue and likely a passerby. Thats why a backyard is the very next venue. The only legislation that had been passed with respect to use of cadavers for medical research since Burke and Hare was that the government sanctioned the use of executed felons and deceased wards of the state,...the problems that caused Burke and Hare were still present in London in 1888......lots of students and researchers, few bodies to cut up and study.

The 5 women that are Canonicals were not all killed so as to satisfy the blood lust of a single murderer, they were obviously killed for different reasons.....in the first 2 cases, its for that organ...in the 3rd, its to punish, in the 4th it is unclear what the objectives were, and in the 5th, cutting a dead body is seemingly the motivation for the murder, or she was punished, and made to appear as if her killer just wanted to cut.

Cheers chaps

[Mascara & Paranoia]

What was done in Mitre Square was remarkable considering that if Lawende saw Kate, her killer had around 8 minutes tops to get her to the location and do everything he does and then leave. You may say thats just what the killer of the first two may have done. True. But why he kills is the issue here.

Probably for the exact same reason he killed Polly and Annie; for the organs and to (more specifically) mutilate. Though it's a lot more likely and probable that he took organs from his victims as souvenirs rather than having an agenda to only steal uteruses.

If you're gonna go with the theory that Jack was an organ harvester, then you have to included Eddowes; her uterus was removed too. So either what initially started as an agenda turned into a bit of a thrill for Jack, or that was one hell of a stellar copycat with an almost identical m.o. and signature as the real Jack.

I think the main (or only) reason you exclude Eddowes (and Stride and Kelly) from the Ripper's list of kills is because she doesn't fit as nicely into the 'Jack just being a uteri thief' scenario because she also had her kidney taken and had her face mutilated in addition. Well, so? Pretending for a moment that Jack was just in it for the uteruses (uteri?), that still doesn't exclude Eddowes or even cast doubt as to her being Jack's handiwork. No offence, but Eddowes being done by yet another alleged copycat in the area is even more hard to comprehend than the supposed copycat some people think dismantled Mary. With all these different players and agendas thrown into the mix, you might as well put it down to the Masons at this point, Perry.

[perrymason]

Probably for the exact same reason he killed Polly and Annie; for the organs and to (more specifically) mutilate. Though it's a lot more likely and probable that he took organs from his victims as souvenirs rather than having an agenda to only steal uteruses.

If you're gonna go with the theory that Jack was an organ harvester, then you have to included Eddowes; her uterus was removed too. So either what initially started as an agenda turned into a bit of a thrill for Jack, or that was one hell of a stellar copycat with an almost identical m.o. and signature as the real Jack.

I think the main (or only) reason you exclude Eddowes (and Stride and Kelly) from the Ripper's list of kills is because she doesn't fit as nicely into the 'Jack just being a uteri thief' scenario because she also had her kidney taken and had her face mutilated in addition. Well, so? Pretending for a moment that Jack was just in it for the uteruses (uteri?), that still doesn't exclude Eddowes or even cast doubt as to her being Jack's handiwork. No offence, but Eddowes being done by yet another alleged copycat in the area is even more hard to comprehend than the supposed copycat some people think dismantled Mary. With all these different players and agendas thrown into the mix, you might as well put it down to the Masons at this point, Perry.

Hi M & P,

I think you imagine that the first two women were a result of a killer that ultimately sought mutilation as a goal. I dont myself, nor did the attending doctors for the PM's or autopsies. They felt that the killer committed murder so as to obtain the organ successfully extracted only from the second victim. They said so.

As i said, Kate is an interesting problem when trying to eliminate some of the non starters of the Canonical Group...as you say, she lost a partial uterus and a complete kidney. But the circumstances of her murder differ quite a bit from Annies or Pollys...Kate goes the opposite direction of where her boyfriend would likely be when released, into the city, and within 45 minutes of her release she is killed while 7 or 8 current or ex policemen are the closest people to her and the killer. I cannot escape the potential symbolism in nearly cutting the nose off either.

One thing is certain, Kate was not killed for her uterus. Neither does the evidence in Liz Strides murder suggest that. Its obviously not a motive in the murder of Mary Kelly, yet....Its quite possible that Polly and Annie were killed for that reason. The doctors said so on record.

As for theories....I dont have any conspiracy theories.....I do imagine that more than one man killed women and made torsos, and I dont think Jack killed all 13 or 14 of his possibles list...so there were other men killing...some that might have been confused for a man with more specific objectives than merely slicing away.

Best regards