Examination of a Motive

[Errata]

Boys... boys.. you're both pretty.

Trevor: I am not required to have medical experts in order to have an opinion. However, according to my father, who is an OB/GYN specializing in surgery A: a medically correct hysterectomy can take place in a little less than half an hour and B: From an surgical perspective, no two emergency hysterectomies take place the same way. It is defined by the surrounding trauma. And that's assuming a hysterectomy is a valid medical model, given that one is supposed to be otherwise unharmed after a hysterectomy. I never said the pose Chapman was found in facilitated organ removal. I said it could aid in it's location. If you would like a detailed account as to why, I will be happy to tell you, or you could ask any woman who has ever had a pelvic exam.

As for the kidney. I don't know, and I've said I don't know. Nobody knows. For all I know Jack the ripper took the uterus, and a doctor took the kidney. Or a cop took it to play a prank on his landlady. Or she never had one. We don't know.

A hysterectomy was an abusively common surgery in Victorian times. It was used to "calm hysteria". Which translates into "cure disobedience" in many cases. Cutting one out of a dead prostitute in an ice shed makes little sense to me. Especially given the contempt with which female patients were treated. Any doctor who wanted a uterus could come in to the hospital and cut one out of a live patient themselves, no matter how unskilled or untried they were, as long as someone with surgical privileges at that hospital was present. My father tells me it was not uncommon to use hysterectomies as training for "real" surgery.

Trevor, you don't know. Nobody does. You have a theory. And not a bad one. But it isn't proven. It can't be proven. None of this can. Unlike you, I don't have theory. I have notions, ideas, gut feelings even. I do not agree with your theory. It's intriguing, and it raises a lot of questions. And that's fantastic. A good theory should raise questions, even if you don't agree with it. But we are scholars in this. Not judge and jury. I do not feel the need to prove you wrong, or to prove me right for that matter. It can't be done anyway.

I want you to tell me your theory because it educates me on the case, and opens my mind to new possibilities. And I will tell you where I think the holes in your theory are, so you can make the best possible argument. But I will never tell you that you are wrong. And I will never ask you to prove it. And I will never say that your theory is impossible because it doesn't agree with mine. For many reasons, but chiefly because of this. I want you to think. I want you to have your eyes opened. I want you to be open to new thoughts and ideas. Jack the Ripper is long dead, and nothing we discuss will ever either bring justice, or prove his identity. But we are all teachers and students, and we use this crime as our thought exercise. We use this crime to learn how to form a thesis, or how to see the world from the view of a long dead generation. We learn to defend ourselves academically, and how to plow through a gut feeling to find the source of the problem. We learn to think critically. We learn to empathize. We learn about poverty and bigotry and the evils of an impenetrable class system. If all you are interested in is being right, I think you will be disappointed in the end. I would hope that if I were to come up with a theory, you would treat it the way I treat yours. Disagree with it all you like, but help me make it better anyway.

Well now that I got all preachy, I'm getting a popsicle.

[protohistorian]

Yes Trevor part of her fell out of her clothes at the mortuary. Which a. means that unless the liberated piece fell into her pocket whist struggling, it is unlikely that was the point of severance. and b. that a piece of the ear was missing and so obsevable at the crime scene. Even if we do not have an account of it being described as missing at the scene, it was in fact so.Unless your clever facial mutilating organ thieves put it in her clothes to through everyone who has studied the case for a century but YOU off the trail.

as to the missing heart, "The pericardium was open below and the heart absent." While this comes from the post mortem and not the scene (MY MISTAKE) it is not a facial injury as you suggest. I understand Ripperologists love to chase their tales by being clever and debating what absent means because there is more than 1 meaning in the dictionary.
Here is my take, he does not say the heart is in the thorax. As the other removed organs are described by location in the room and the heart is not, the heart is in fact ABSENT!

On to your Anatomy Actof 1832. So in the 46 years between passing and the murders we have NO confirmed cases of body part snatching in London, but when our string of killings start evil dismembering organ thieves flock to the mortuaries of London to snatch parts from these very special impoverished unfortuneates? But not all of the unfortuneates killed in 1888, just the M5 because they are psychic organ theives and know this will be the historical grouping and cause us the most confusion.
Sometimes you scare me Buddy. Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

O.K. Trevor I'll play, your telling me two different mortuary attendants at two separate times, on two different victims failed in their attempt to take a head with a knife when there was probably a bone saw present? Eddowes' nose and ear were clearly documented as be missing at the scene, as was Kelly's heart. So what the mutilating killer did not snatch, diabolical mortuary attendants with better tools also failed at? And to top it off this is a more logical explanation than the killer inflicted the mutilations? I can't wait for your Kelly and Chapman bionic neck theory. Dave

Who said Mortuary attendants perhaps you should look up the Anatomy Act 1832.

I think you should read up again no proper examination of the bodies was done at the scene

As whether Kellys heart was missing is still not clear if it wasnt then more weight is added to the view that the killer did not remove the organs.

Didnt Eddowes missing ear piece turn up at the mortuary ?

A more plausible explanation is that some of the facial injuries and the cuts to the nose and the ear could have been made whilst Eddowes was struggling and the killer was trying to cut her throat. You seem to be the only one who is suggesting the nose was cut and taken away as a trophy

[protohistorian]

O.K. Trevor I'll play, your telling me two different mortuary attendants at two separate times, on two different victims failed in their attempt to take a head with a knife when there was probably a bone saw present? Eddowes' nose and ear were clearly documented as be missing at the scene, as was Kelly's heart. So what the mutilating killer did not snatch, diabolical mortuary attendants with better tools also failed at? And to top it off this is a more logical explanation than the killer inflicted the mutilations? I can't wait for your Kelly and Chapman bionic neck theory. Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Anyone who could take an inventory of the described wounds and think he has anatomical knowledge is living in denial. If you accept he has anatomical knowledge you have to accept he wanted 2/3 of a bladder form the M2 event. Failure to hold a singular neck wound typology, poorly placed wounds on all the victims. It just goes on and on. Dave

You are quite right the killer did not have any anataomical knowledge. But the persons who removed them later on did.

As you rightly say some of the injuries to the internal organs were obvioulsy made by the killer when inserting a long bladed knife into the abdomen and drawing it up.

[protohistorian]

Anyone who could take an inventory of the described wounds and think he has anatomical knowledge is living in denial. If you accept he has anatomical knowledge you have to accept he wanted 2/3 of a bladder from the M2 event. Failure to hold a singular neck wound typology, poorly placed wounds on all the victims, failed attempt to take the head twice, it just goes on and on. Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

First of all, a lot of medical truths have to go out the window in a situation like this. Simply because our frame of reference does not include something like this. It is in fact difficult for surgeons to get to the kidneys from the front. There is stuff in the way, its encased in fat, it's way down in the cavity. A surgeon risks harming vital structures taking a kidney out that way. A serial killer is not burdened with the desire that the patient live, or making a neat job of it, or protecting other organs. So difficulty becomes much less of a factor, and time and will more of one.

I think that certain amount of anatomical knowledge is necessary, though not so much medical knowledge. The uterus is a tricky organ. It is essentially a pocket. Our anatomical drawings today do not help us identify it by sight. Even a surgeon would have very difficult time locating it in poor light. If a person knows that it is attached to the vaginal canal, then it is easy to find, regardless of whether or not he ever saw one before. The Victorian era was not one marked by ignorance. Merely silence on certain subjects. Everyone knew how babies are born (from the uterus into the birth canal and out with a lot of yelling). Where being a Victorian was going to limit you in that area is the possibility that no one told you how the baby got there in the first place. Chapman is actually found in the pose most likely to expose the uterus for someone searching for it through the vagina. Did he? I don't know. But it's suggestive.

By the time the killer reaches Eddowes he has successfully located a uterus, so it's a repeat on her as on Chapman. Then the question is, why the kidney? Well the abdominal cut is a mess. Probably because three layers of buttons were in the way. There are slices and cuts on other organs, possibly from the abdominal cuts. The intestines were cut up somewhat as well. It is possible he exposed the kidney through an accidental cut. It doesn't even require that he knew it was a kidney. It might merely have piqued his curiosity.

We don't know. We have theories based on theories based on other theories. I think it's possible. I think it might explain some inconsistencies in technique vs. apparent knowledge. All I ask is that you try it on before accepting or rejecting. Either outcome is fine with me.

The uterus from Chapman and Eddowes were removed in different ways also entry to the abdominal cavities to both victins were also different. That suggests two different people removed the organs. Unless the killer was so highly skilled he could diversify with the removals.

At no time did any of the doctors check the bodies at the crime scene to see if any organs had been removed

The poses both Chapman and Eddowes were found in is not condusive to organs removal from the abdomens.

Come on you have seen the pics regarding the difficulty in locating the kidney and its removal. If you are going to stick with the organ removal I would ask that you provide some expert testimony to corroborate your belief not from trawling through medical references.

[Errata]

Every time I think of something that would be terribly useful to know, it appears to not be mentioned anywhere. So I'm going to make a list, and if anyone knows the answers to these questions, shout em out. Document supported answers please. Not that I want to check anyone's work, I just also want to know if they knew it at the time.

It would be terribly useful to know if:
There were bloody footprints leading away from the crime scenes.
There was a blood trail of any kind from the crime scene.
After Chapman's uterus was removed, and upon seeing the abdomen open on Eddowes, if the ME checked for the absence of a uterus on scene.
They checked for discarded clothing in the area.
Anyone heard anything unusual. Not necessarily screams, but anything.
Press showed up at any of the scenes, or any of the morgues.
Any of the doctors performing the autopsies had any experience with massive trauma (that's probably find out-able. I'm just lazy)
Eddowes nose was anywhere on scene. Her ear was...
If any animals were on the scenes either when discovered or at any point before the corpses were removed.

There's probably more, but I can't think of them at the moment.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure I agree.

Paraphrasing from other posts:...

You don't start out with a desire to kill people and then change your reason or motive part way through.

You decide to kill people in a particular way, to do whatever you're going to do becasue it meets some need or another.

If that includes disembowelling people then thats what you do.

I think it;s clear that he knew what he was doing, had anatomical experience.

Otherwise how can you even know how to cut someone open quickly, in the dark, with the risk of being caught, and remove anything?

It is supposedly very difficult to take kidneys for example from the front.

Can you imagine starting from nothing, no experience, and killing someone, then cutting them open and finding the bits to take?

Within a couple of kills?

I think that a lot of JTR commentators glibly pass this over as though it's something from a comic book that needs no further thought.

The truth though is that it would be incredibly difficult without some kind of knowledge to cut someone open, to even know how to cut them open in the right place, and to take bits.

The "routing around" doesn't ring true in any way, shape, or form.

To my mind anyway.

Excellent post glad to see someone else looking at it with a common sense approach.

If the killer were after the organs and did have anatomical knowledge he would not have inflicted the abdominal mutilations. Firstly that would have likely caused injury to the organs, and secondly by carrying out the abdomoinal mutilations would have made the abdominal cavity fill up with blood making it almost impossible under those conditions to locate,take hold and remove the organs.

[Errata]

I'm not sure I agree.

Paraphrasing from other posts:...

You don't start out with a desire to kill people and then change your reason or motive part way through.

You decide to kill people in a particular way, to do whatever you're going to do becasue it meets some need or another.

If that includes disembowelling people then thats what you do.

I think it;s clear that he knew what he was doing, had anatomical experience.

Otherwise how can you even know how to cut someone open quickly, in the dark, with the risk of being caught, and remove anything?

It is supposedly very difficult to take kidneys for example from the front.

Can you imagine starting from nothing, no experience, and killing someone, then cutting them open and finding the bits to take?

Within a couple of kills?

I think that a lot of JTR commentators glibly pass this over as though it's something from a comic book that needs no further thought.

The truth though is that it would be incredibly difficult without some kind of knowledge to cut someone open, to even know how to cut them open in the right place, and to take bits.

The "routing around" doesn't ring true in any way, shape, or form.

To my mind anyway.

First of all, a lot of medical truths have to go out the window in a situation like this. Simply because our frame of reference does not include something like this. It is in fact difficult for surgeons to get to the kidneys from the front. There is stuff in the way, its encased in fat, it's way down in the cavity. A surgeon risks harming vital structures taking a kidney out that way. A serial killer is not burdened with the desire that the patient live, or making a neat job of it, or protecting other organs. So difficulty becomes much less of a factor, and time and will more of one.

I think that certain amount of anatomical knowledge is necessary, though not so much medical knowledge. The uterus is a tricky organ. It is essentially a pocket. Our anatomical drawings today do not help us identify it by sight. Even a surgeon would have very difficult time locating it in poor light. If a person knows that it is attached to the vaginal canal, then it is easy to find, regardless of whether or not he ever saw one before. The Victorian era was not one marked by ignorance. Merely silence on certain subjects. Everyone knew how babies are born (from the uterus into the birth canal and out with a lot of yelling). Where being a Victorian was going to limit you in that area is the possibility that no one told you how the baby got there in the first place. Chapman is actually found in the pose most likely to expose the uterus for someone searching for it through the vagina. Did he? I don't know. But it's suggestive.

By the time the killer reaches Eddowes he has successfully located a uterus, so it's a repeat on her as on Chapman. Then the question is, why the kidney? Well the abdominal cut is a mess. Probably because three layers of buttons were in the way. There are slices and cuts on other organs, possibly from the abdominal cuts. The intestines were cut up somewhat as well. It is possible he exposed the kidney through an accidental cut. It doesn't even require that he knew it was a kidney. It might merely have piqued his curiosity.

We don't know. We have theories based on theories based on other theories. I think it's possible. I think it might explain some inconsistencies in technique vs. apparent knowledge. All I ask is that you try it on before accepting or rejecting. Either outcome is fine with me.

[protohistorian]

In many societies -particularly in biblical times, but it still exists in some places today - the cutting off of the nose was/is a common punishment for adultry/sexual promiscuity/prostitution. Maybe this is why jack targeted the nose?

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

[protohistorian]

His speed in say the M4 event is a result of lessons learned in M1 and M2. I suspect just the nature of the abdominal muscles is what thwarted M1. I see this in trying to take a head also, save that he never learns enough to pull It off. By the M4 event he has had experience in the abdominal cavity. No outside knowledge is required to explain the speed. Dave

[DaveShuts]

Dave I agree. He did not care if it was person x's uterus, just a uterus that he had taken from x. I suspect his internal need was severe enough he could care less who the victims were. His psychopathology vacillates between uncontrolled and controlled by the trophies. As long as he see's the trophy as working, he is quiet. When not,like when it liquefies, he hunts. He does not give a rats arse who the victim is, the victim is his means to restore a stable state, not humans, and very clearly, not specific humans. Dave

I'm not sure I agree.

Paraphrasing from other posts:...

You don't start out with a desire to kill people and then change your reason or motive part way through.

You decide to kill people in a particular way, to do whatever you're going to do becasue it meets some need or another.

If that includes disembowelling people then thats what you do.

I think it;s clear that he knew what he was doing, had anatomical experience.

Otherwise how can you even know how to cut someone open quickly, in the dark, with the risk of being caught, and remove anything?

It is supposedly very difficult to take kidneys for example from the front.

Can you imagine starting from nothing, no experience, and killing someone, then cutting them open and finding the bits to take?

Within a couple of kills?

I think that a lot of JTR commentators glibly pass this over as though it's something from a comic book that needs no further thought.

The truth though is that it would be incredibly difficult without some kind of knowledge to cut someone open, to even know how to cut them open in the right place, and to take bits.

The "routing around" doesn't ring true in any way, shape, or form.

To my mind anyway.

[protohistorian]

Dave I agree. He did not care if it was person x's uterus, just a uterus that he had taken from x. I suspect his internal need was severe enough he could care less who the victims were. His psychopathology vacillates between uncontrolled and controlled by the trophies. As long as he see's the trophy as working, he is quiet. When not,like when it liquefies, he hunts. He does not give a rats arse who the victim is, the victim is his means to restore a stable state, not humans, and very clearly, not specific humans. Dave

[DaveShuts]

Dave, I do not believe attribution of the trophy to the specific victim is a factor. I think trophy valuation was based on something internal to the killer, or perhaps something interacting with his psychopathology. Dave

My point is this...

Try to imagine yourself as a serial killer - you're going to kill someone - for whatever reason - and enjoy it.

You want to be able to relive this occassion again and again, and to do this you take a trophy that you can look at in the future, that has a special meaning to you.

It's a bit like owning a cheap ring that was your grandmothers, aunties engagement ring.

It means something special to you, but not to anyone else.

If you take just body parts then you can't do this.

Now of course JTR might have taken other trophies, but the removal of organs suggests something other than trophies.

As is correctly pointed out, some serial killers like to eat body parts, since they believe that they "own the soul" - but some parts taken by JTR are not readily edible.

So there's something very sinister going on (obviously!).

But to my mind, the destruction of the face is a sign of hatred, and the "strange marks" to some faces could be an abortive attempt to remove or disfigure the face.

If this is true, then the removal of organs comes down (in my opinion) to destroy the person - to remove what makes them that person (the face, female, ability to have children, etc), and is probably a hatred of women, maybe a specific kind of woman in particular.