Examination of a Motive

[lynn cates]

Kate

Hello Fish.

"we know for a fact that a piece of Cates ear was cut off"

Ouch! Leave my ears alone. (heh-heh)

Well, it's certainly a fact that the assailant made 2 attempts at Kate's nose. And he did this before the abdominal mutilations. So, yes, that indicates its importance. There are easier protuberances to remove, and so, after an initial failure with the nose, they could have served as default.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hi Errata!

You write:

"The triangular flaps were also likely edge work, but very careful."

Most of those who see the facial cuts to Eddowes as meticulous, detailed work, ground this wiew on - to some extent - the nicks to the eyelids, but mainly to the the inverted V:s. I think this is wrong. I believe that it is nothing but collateral damage, originating from a first, failed attempt to cut Eddowes´ nose away.

This was something I learnt from Jon Smythe, writing under the name "Wickerman". If you look up the thread "The two upside down V:s" under Eddowes, and then read post 69, you will see what I mean!

The best,
Fisherman

I read through the thread, and it was fantastic. Thank you.

I'm still not sure I agree with it however. It's funny how it depends completely on what you see in you head. With terrible pictures and sketched to go on, we can see the exact same wounds differently.

The oblique cut to the nose indicating a fulcrum bothers me for this reason. Given that cheeks are somewhat squishy, a maneuver that causes a cut on the nose seems far more likely to scrape the cheek rather than cut into it. Unless of course the point dug in, but that would result in a singular line and not a flap. If it was an attempt to remove the nose that cause the flaps, i would expect the bridge of the nose to be skinned, not cut. Also the cuts appear to be the exact width of the eyes, directly below the eyes. Not that I think it has significance, but it might mean the cuts were made with the orbit as a reference. So, reverse the blade with the tip towards the nose and lay it flat on the eye and saw downward. That better accounts for an oblique cut high on the nose. It might also explain why the flaps weren't completely sawed through. It is much harder to saw through something near the tip than near the center of the blade.

But I don't know. It's based on the physics in my head.

[D.B.Wagstaff]

Kate's/Mary Jane's Nose

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?

[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.

[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 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]

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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