Did Jack kill more than three?

[Doctor X]

I would have to agree with that as well. If one includes Mary Kelly, it seems mutilation was the main reason or at least a major motivation for his killing.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I agree that it seems unlikely that the Ripper's main intention was to take out the organs since these could be obtained elsewhere. Most likely he took them as 'souvernirs' or 'trophees' in order to relive the crimes afterwards - it is of course a pure speculation, but apart from some exceptions where cannibalism was the intent, this is usually the most common reason for a serial killer to take organs from a body.
In my view, the mutilations was what he was after, and the organ taking secondary (although an important part of his signature).

All the best

[Doctor X]

What troubles me with the "out to get fresh organs" theory is that it would have been much easier to do what had been done earlier by the ressurection men.

Exactly.

Even Burke and Hare did not resort to offing their victims in the streets.

Exactly.

Furthermore, Jack did not do a good job at taking them.

Now as to "why" he took the organs, without knowing who Jack was one can only speculate from curiosity, to hatred of women--wanting to destroy them--to cannibalism, et cetera.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[JSchmidt]

What troubles me with the "out to get fresh organs" theory is that it would have been much easier to do what had been done earlier by the ressurection men.
Without the possibility of getting strung up for murder, with the use proper faculties and lighting... I can't contradict your theory, it is a plausible explanation, but it seems to be awfully dangerous. Even Burke and Hare did not resort to offing their victims in the streets.

[Doctor X]

You ask the $37.43 question JSchmidt. The answer to them will require "reasonable assumptions"--to maybe "not-so-reasonable assumptions"--and the conclusions based upon them will only be as reliable as the underlying assumptions.

I am not convinced with the "sell organ" argument . . . but that is my assumption.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

Without knowing who he killed, it will be impossible to sort out why he killed JS.

If seen as individual murders, using only what transpired, not what we think the killer may have intended or desired, then it appears as if a man wanted abdominal organs. Maybe he worked with another man, but the objectives included abdominal organs. Who he killed aside from those victims is up for grabs, but someone took organs from two women, the uterus being common to both.....and a story that was not denied by a Teaching Hospital at a University, puts the value of that organ, intact, at 20L...or the equivalent of approx 1200L today.

Best regards,

[JSchmidt]

I really wish we'd know what the hell he intended with his disembowelments. And with taking the organs. The question with that remains whether the organs where the goal of the crimes or just happened to be tasty morsels to take home with and do something with or about.
And whether the indoor killing of MJK allowed him to do whatever he wanted to do with them so he left them there.
Can think of cannibalism, trophy taking, fetishism and/or some kind of occult or religious practice. But there seems to be no clue regarding what kind of goal he had.

Liz doesn't have medical evidence contradicting an interruption. She just doesn't have medical evidence that suggests it. Big dif.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

The point was certainly valid worded as is. If the latest she had her throat cut was 12:56, and Diemshu(i)tz arrives at 1, as he says, there was no mutilation interruptions. It would have been a much better argument to begin with had there even been attempts at further cuts, or we see an indication something, anything,.. was started, but stopped mid-stream.

As it is, for at least 4 minutes, she very likely remained untouched while lying in an empty yard, as per medical and club member statements.

As I said, with Polly, the argument has more credibility, because her killer left evidence he wanted more than just to kill her, and it involved her abdomen. The evidence with Liz indicates that her killer just killed her.

The evidence with Mary Jane indicates if all he wanted was a heart to take, he certainly took the long way home,.. and he had no interest in taking abdominal organs, like Annie and Kates killer did.

Speculating on what actions the killer may have intended with Liz, or what Marys killer was really after are just that, all we do have is the records of what their killers did do....and not nearly enough information to speculate why. And what we have does not add up to a single killer conclusion.

Best regards.

[Doctor X]

Well, Doc, frankly it isnīt.

Until you find the spray and adequately account for its current absence, it rather is.

Even a small hole will result in a spray and considerable jugular flow down the side of the next and body.

I feel pretty certain that you would find it hard to get hold of a forensic pathologist who would swallow your assertions whole.

You have a very poor track record with claims it seems. However, you are free to demonstrate otherwise. You remain free to explain the absence of spray.

Anytime.

Mitch Rowe

Even in ancient black and white and silent, you can see the animal is held to the ground--"OMFG!!11!"--you can see the butcher stand opposite the cut, and you can see the flood and spray.

Thank you very much for providing video support to my argument. I hope Fisherman watches it closely.

Mazeltov!

Sorry, I cant keep saying "Jack the Ripper" like this was an actual man, its a sign off on a hoax letter.

For convenience sake, it works. A bit like claiming a "Mark" or "Luke" wrote anonymous documents decades after the relevant time period--it is convenient. Leave aside whether or not "he" killed three . . . four . . . all of them and was last seen muttering to himself on a grass knoll. . . .

Natalie Severn makes very good points.

Dan Norder's fanny is still sore after making a fool of himself inserting his [Stop that.--Ed.]--I was going to write "proboscis"--in a matter he did not understand and, apparently, still does not. Unable to accept correction, he ran away. Apparently, his failure still upsets him whenever he sits.

Sorry to make him cry . . . again.

Someone will inform me, I am sure, if he can contribute something relevant to ripperology and this topic rather than fluffing his unmerited ego.

--J.D.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Liz doesn't have medical evidence contradicting an interruption. She just doesn't have medical evidence that suggests it. Big dif."

How, Tom, would such evidence look? And is not this assertion of yours based on a scenario with Jack as the killer?
Interestingly, the fact that you claim that she evinces no signs that contradict an interruption could be interpreted as a sign of your admitting that the shallow(er) cut could go to bolster that interruption, whereas when it is argued that she was one of Jackīs, the argumentation goes along the lines of pointing out that the cut was so severe that it must have been one of Jackīs.
An act of balance, if I ever saw one!

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Don't forget 'pontificating'...Dr. X's word of choice.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dan Norder]

Regarding this Dan, however, he jumped into a confession of faith from a troll who had previously cited a non-psychologist/psychiatrist support an erroneous claim by making patently erroneous claims himself.

Apparently "Doctor X" isn't content with making a boob out of himself in one thread but is now taking it upon himself to launch attacks on other threads.

Yes, you were in an argument with a troll, but you made a claim that was outright false (and well known to be false) in an effort to try to score a point in your attacks back. I pointed out you were wrong, and you threw a temper tantrum. Your behavior has been just as bad as the troll you were fighting with. Worse, because you're even more tedious and pompous.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Doctor X



It pains me to criticise experts, but another example regarding the competance of the doctors who attended the Ripper crime scenes revolves around the way in which the medical men of the time seem to provide the killer with the ability to direct the spray of blood away from his person.

As you say did the medical expert witnesses posses the expertise to qualify their statements? Had they studied blood dispersal? I think not, I'm sure the killer was more saturated with the blood of his victims than has been let on by the expert witnesses of the day.

Of course Chapman could be an exception as she displayed sign's of asphyxiation. If her heart had stopped beating before her throat was cut then there was less likelyhood of spurting. Did the killer know this? Or was strangulation part of the thrill?

As far as I can see there were no clear signs of asphyxiation observed on the other victims, so with regard to the title of the present thread do we omit Chapman from the series?

Observer

Hi Observer,
I suggest you read the medical reports of the Police Surgeons, most of them made available by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner in "The Ultimate JtR Source Book".
On Page 228/229/239 there is Dr Brown"s report in detail,on Catherine Eddowes.
The doctor"s reports leave no doubt that the medics were very well trained,and yes, absence of blood spurt has been mentioned in almost all ,as being an indication that throat cut and mutilation followed death via compression of the carotid artery>strangulation and /or tourniquets being made of the women"s scarves which had the same effect,viz strangulation to stop blood spurt.
All victims are believed to have been lying down when their throats were cut.Liz had two big bruises either side of the upper chest which fitted with that thinking.
Natalie

[Tom_Wescott]

Liz doesn't have medical evidence contradicting an interruption. She just doesn't have medical evidence that suggests it. Big dif.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I suppose this are of study will always fall into a discussion of specific wounds, their manner of creation, and the similarities of one victims wounds to another. But this thread doesn't ask that.....just do we see evidence that more than 3 of the Canonicals belong on "The Rippers" hit list. How about discernible objectives? A simple desire to cut and see blood and guts makes interesting fictional reading, but little sense for all 5, when we have ample evidence that at least 2 women were killed for their abdominal organs.

The third in this question would have to be Polly...she is the only one that closely matches the organ donors initial wounds, and the only victim that doesnt have medical evidence contradicting an interruption. Liz of course does....and with at least 4 minutes, and available privacy, yet not one attempt evident to even so much as touch her after the throat cut,.... its illogical to see this as a "Ripper" kill.

Without even delving too deeply into any wounds, the last victim is found indoors undressed in bed, she was likely approached differently, killed differently, and her body was treated differently postmortem, and her abdominal organs are left to decorate the tableau. Certainly not a man who desired abdominal organs to take with him.

As is evident in 2 cases, and probably in a 3rd. I have no idea if this was done by your Jack the Ripper fellow, or just likely 3 by one man. Maybe your Ripper guy is Mister Aimless in Room 13....he seems to be the one interested in just cutting, and blood and guts.

But is clear that one man likely killed 2 women for abdominal organs, possibly a 3rd, who was the first "canonical".

Sorry, I cant keep saying "Jack the Ripper" like this was an actual man, its a sign off on a hoax letter.

Best regards all.