Examination of a Motive

[Errata]

The outcome of all of this in this case is that I am slightly surprised that I am the one promoting the no-nonsense scenario here, whereas you opt for the more exotic line. Since you come across as a very sensible, rational and openminded poster, with lots of good sense and facts to back up your thinking, I think I may need to leave the door ajar on this issue. But only a little, since I really do believe that the collateral damage suggestion comes quite close to slamming that door shut...!

The best,
Fisherman

I don't know. Maybe it's the long buried actress in me that craves something more dramatic. And it's kind of odd that I sort of cling to the cheek flaps being done purposefully, especially since even I cannot see the point in it, and don't know why he would have bothered. The best I can come up with is that it reminds me of something that I cannot yet place. I think that's what my gut instincts usually are, a sort of flag that says "hey, you know more about this than you think you do". Unfortunately, until my poor brain gets around to retrieving whatever it is and allowing me to compare it to the situation at hand, I can't tell if my gut instinct is applicable, or some stray memory (like a Halloween costume someone wore in 7th grade or something). Mostly when I get to this point I sort of start thinking out loud, which is what a lot of this is. A sort of intellectual stalking where I start circling inward until I find it. All of which is to say, I haven't ruled out collateral damage. Until I find the thing on the tip of my brain however, It's not going to feel right to me.

[Errata]

i do not propose to go into a long debate over these issues again but yourself and several others who are obvioulsy new to this have raised issues which I hope i have answered and you are now more au fait with the results of my investigation into this issue.

Lets hope we can put this to bed once and for all.

I know your theory. You know I know your theory. You know I disagree with it, you know why, and you know I admire it despite the fact I disagree with it. You and I agree that a sexual motive seems unlikely. I am glad you have medical experts. That's important. And you have absolutely demonstrated that getting a kidney out is not as easy as it may sound. If you feel I have not given your theory the weight it deserves then I apologize. My problem is not with your theory, your experts, or your investigation. My problem is that your tone in these posts is dismissive and belittling. When I have made it clear through all of these posts that I am thinking aloud and feeling my way through, and you challenge me to come up with medical experts to prove an assumption, that is combative. And it's unnecessary. You seem openly hostile and derisive to those who challenge your assumptions. I do not feel I have done anything that warrants being patronized, or looked down on.

Clearly I am new here. Clearly I am not in possession of as many facts as others. That's why I ask questions. As a 32 year old woman, believe me when I say that I have had enough of getting beat on, physically, emotionally, intellectually. I will not ask that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. This is a free forum, and you can do as you like. However, if you cannot communicate with me with the respect and patience I have earned by virtue of being a fellow human, then don't bother. If I wanted to be told that I am an idiot, or incapable of rational thought simply because I disagree, I would still be with my ex. Trevor, I think you have a lot to offer and a lot you can teach. But only if you can respect us. And I will try to make sure that any communication I have with you is a respectful as I would wish for myself.

[Abby Normal]

Firstly I do not suggest that my theories are right. I set out many years ago to re inevstigate this mystery. I was able to do that in an unbiased fashion. Having looked initilally at all the facts surrounding the case. It soon became apparent that the facts and the evidence (little as it was) which people have been seeking to rely upon for 120 years was supect. I therefore set out to prove or disprove some of these facts.

When looking at the organ removal from the victims the suggestion that the killer removed these at the crime scene has been a major part of this mystery.What is there to corroborate this suggestion. As it currently stands the only thing is that some 12 hours after the victims were examined the organs were found to be missing, and the fact that the intestines were ripped out or cut out.

Now I can understand why the masses have automatically put 2 and 2 together and assume that the killer removed them.

As you now I do not subsribe to that theory having regard to how my investigation unfolded and the suggestion that the organs were not removed by the killer at the scene. The facts that i seek to rely on in that suggestion are many and must cause a serious doubt about the original theory.

1. Would the killer have been able to remove those organs given the condition of the body and the abdominal mutilations and the light available to him and the instruments needed to remove them with some precision. Couldnt do it with a 6 inch bladed knife. I belive not

2. The killer wouldnt need to remove the intestines to remove a uterus, so the suggestion that he laid out the inetstines to faciltate the removal doesnt stand up to close scrutiny. The kidney and the uterus both have to stand or fall together you can t say well i dont think he took the kidney but he did take the uterus.

3. Not only would he have had diifficulty in locating the organs but even more difficulty in getting hold of them due to all the blood that would have been in the abdomen.

4.Would he have had time well to be able to answer that one must look at the Eddowes murder and by my calculations based on Pc watkins testimony he would only have had approx 9 mins to kill her mutilate her and remove two vital organs. An impossible task I suggest. All this rubbilsh that has been written on here about the killer reaching in and grabbing hold cutting and slashing etc, again belive that if you wish.

5. The uterus of both victims were removed in two diferent ways as were entries to the abdominal cavities suggesting two different people were responsible. The bodies were taken to two different mortuaries which I would suggest corroborates the latter.

6. If the killer had removed a uterus from Chapman why take another from Eddowes why not another vital organ and for those who say it was sexual. please explain how a kidney can be looked upon as a sexual organ. If that be the case I might have an orgasm everytime I eat a steak and kidney pie putting a whole new meaning to oral sex !

7. If the organs were removed at the mortuaries then some of the internal wounds and cuts which were found at the post mortem stage could have been made in order to effect the removals. That person or person may well have needed to act quickly.

8. As you know in order to prove or disprove this theory i enlsieted the help of a medical team and we conducted some experiments of dead bodies under mortuary conditions. These experiments were fully documented and photographed and made the subject of a powerpoint presenatation which I sent you. In my opinion and the opinion of the medical team who have all reviewed the post mortem reports state that given all the circumstances the killer did not remove those organs.

Now I am not a medical expert and neither are you or many of the others on here so i have to accept what they say. Now if you have any experts who wish to challenge that then I dont have a problem with that.

I have introduced a new theory to this mystery which some including yourself are finding it hard to accept or simply dont want to accept it. But the facts speak for themselves the experts speak for themselves. the pictures speak for themselves. If you dont want to or are not prepared to consider or accept new findings so be it I wont lose any sleep.

We do not know what skill and level or expertise victorian anatomists had so it is unfair to judge a modern day surgeon against a victorian anatomist. I am sure a modern day surgeon could remove a uterus in double quick time under controlled conditions but recreating the victorian crime scene would take him much longer using a long bladed knife. My experts clearly state that almost impossible to remove a kidney with a long bladed knife.

i do not propose to go into a long debate over these issues again but yourself and several others who are obvioulsy new to this have raised issues which I hope i have answered and you are now more au fait with the results of my investigation into this issue.

"If anyone else on here would like a copy of the medical presentation then feel free to PM me with an e mail address."

Lets hope we can put this to bed once and for all.

Hi Trevor

I have introduced a new theory to this mystery

Which is? If Jtr did not remove the organs, who did and why?

[D.B.Wagstaff]

Hello D.B. we have to be very careful about importing values from other cultures unless we have a historically grounded suspect to define those values. Dave

Very true, but East end of London was a very metropolitan area where many cultures were respresented. It would only take one person influenced by one cultural practice - and they wouldn't even have to necessarily be of that culture.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

I have introduced a new theory to this mystery

Which is? If Jtr did not remove the organs, who did and why?

Hi

Thats a question many have asked over the past 2 years or so since i raised a doubt about the accepted theory. I keep answering it in the same way.

In my opinion and with corroborated evidence to back it up the organs were removed whilst the bodies were lying in or outside the mortuaries by a bona fide doctor,medical student, or an anatomist prior to the post mortems being conducted. Having regard to the fact that the post mortems were not carried for mnay hours after hey were taken there.

The above catergory of persons had a lawful right to go to mortuaries and freely remove organs and body parts for medical reserach under the Anatomy Act of 1832.

[Abby Normal]

This thread made me think of a new idea in terms of motivation.

What if JtR:

Did not hate prostitutes/women -because they were sinners, or that they were a blight on society, etc

Was not out for revenge-because they gave him a disease, broke his heart etc

Was not just mad at the world-and prostitutes were merely the easiest targets

Did not have any sexual and/or lust motive-because killing/mutilation got him off in any way.

Or any other beforementioned reasons stated as a motivation.


What if his motivation was envy-he wanted to be one- a woman

[Abby Normal]

Hi

Thats a question many have asked over the past 2 years or so since i raised a doubt about the accepted theory. I keep answering it in the same way.

In my opinion and with corroborated evidence to back it up the organs were removed whilst the bodies were lying in or outside the mortuaries by a bona fide doctor,medical student, or an anatomist prior to the post mortems being conducted. Having regard to the fact that the post mortems were not carried for mnay hours after hey were taken there.

The above catergory of persons had a lawful right to go to mortuaries and freely remove organs and body parts for medical reserach under the Anatomy Act of 1832.

Hi Trevor
Interesting and thanks for the explanation. But surely it was not legal for them to do so before the post mortem right? Would they not have to wait until after the post mortem before they removed them?

[protohistorian]

Hello Abby. I do not see anything that precludes other non prostitute motivations. What I see is a limited grasp of anatomy, little but present experiential learning (which precludes psychopathy), a profound reliance on the trophies, and after the M4 event, a psycho pathology that is truly a hunter of people. We have a not so bright, not very quick hunter of people with a string of successful murders as experience to go off of, with a profound reliance on captured bits. At least thats what I see. Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor
Interesting and thanks for the explanation. But surely it was not legal for them to do so before the post mortem right? Would they not have to wait until after the post mortem before they removed them?

You are quite correct and in modern times this would never happen but we are talking about 1888 and organs were still in short supply.So who knows what really went on in these mortuaries. The mortuary keepers were poor men from the workhouses.

Opportunity springs to mind the bodies were there all ready opened up.

It has been documented that at the mortuaries first thing in the mornings there was always a steady stream of organ seekers.

[c.d.]

But isn't this something the police would have been aware of and would have checked out?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

You are quite correct and in modern times this would never happen but we are talking about 1888 and organs were still in short supply.So who knows what really went on in these mortuaries. The mortuary keepers were poor men from the workhouses.

Opportunity springs to mind the bodies were there all ready opened up.

It has been documented that at the mortuaries first thing in the mornings there was always a steady stream of organ seekers.

Hi Trevor
Tumblety perhaps? Wanted to add to his collection, had inquired earlier and been rejected. was able to finagle his way in with bribe and/or (fake) Dr credentials?

[Fisherman]

Errata:

"I haven't ruled out collateral damage. Until I find the thing on the tip of my brain however, It's not going to feel right to me."

Fair enough, Errata!

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

But isn't this something the police would have been aware of and would have checked out?

c.d.

Why would they have been aware of it and nothing to check out. No one discovered they were missing till the doctors carried out the post mortems. Then it was naturally assumed that the killer took them.

If you look at the other victims we know no organs were missing or any attempt made to remove them at the crime scene. The doctors could see the less extent of the injuries of those victims so had anyone took organs from those it would have been spotted at once.

There was no one in official authority to stand guard over the bodies

[Errata]

Bear with me on this one. It's a little odd. Due to the availability of guns, etc. today, cutting throats today is considered a bit fetishistic. Not a lot, but just a little. I mean, if you just want someone dead there are less messy ways available, so someone who cuts throats has a bit invested in the.. aesthetics? Maybe a little bit of a blood fetish. Or alternatively was standing next to the cutlery drawer when they decided to attack.

All off which is to say this. There are things like throat cutting, possible strangulation, possible staging of the scenes, possible organ theft, etc. How do you sift through what is practical, and what is a fetish or significant to the killer. Is the length of the knife significant, or is it whats handy? Were scenes staged, or was it an unintended consequence of looking for valuables? Did he strangle them because he wanted to or because it served a practical purpose? I mean, taking organs (in theory) is clearly not necessary. But was it for a trophy? For dinner? Did he think he could sell it? Because that is kinda practical, if misguided. And just because the knife was a bit more practical back then than it is now, does that mean that he used it because it was practical? Does it mean he didn't have a bit of a fetish? Fetish seems wrong. It implies sexual gratification. I mean satisfaction.

All of this gut feeling stuff made me remember something. A good many people are visually oriented. We imagine things, see them in our head, and then often feel a vague disappointment if it doesn't look like we saw it in our head. Like a painter whose imagination far exceeds his skill. He's rarely going to be satisfied with the outcome til the skills catch up. How much of the more mysterious cuts on these women could be an attempt to make it match the picture in head? I mean, Nichols shallow throat wound was fatal (I think). Could he have made the second big ear to ear cut not out necessity, but because he thought that's what cut throats look like? He thought "it couldn't be fatal, because it's not what I picture when I read penny dreadfuls about slit throats" (or some such)? And if he is very visually oriented, and inexperienced, would that mean that in a sense ALL the scenes were staged? He's most likely at least a little compulsive.

Maybe that explains the cheek flaps on Eddowes. He accidentally makes the first, and makes the other on purpose to preserve the symmetry. It's like making a jack o lantern for your kid. You're not invested in it, you don't particularly care what it looks like, but if you make one eye a lot bigger than the other you even them up. Because even if you don't care, it's what you do. Because people instinctively dislike asymmetry I guess.

How practical or how instinctive the guy is really affects a motive discussion. If he is compulsive and practical, then most things have some significance. If he is impulsive and instinctive, then a lot of things won't have significance. At least not that he himself knew. So is he practical? Instinctive? Both? Neither? How do we know?

[protohistorian]

Hello Errata, I realize it is not perfect, but I would suggest starting with re-occurring phenomena. Even if we start with the Macnaghten grouping, it should allow us a chance to isolate themes, progressions, omissions,and the like. It would also provide some scale for the rate of change within the suspect, as well as those elements he will not change. Dave