"Down On Whores"

[curious]

Hi Sarah

I agree wholly with the first half of your post...

As regards the second though, therein lies the rub...it was your grandmother and not your grandfather...I'm not saying it was universally true, but I suspect all those aspects of food preparation would generally be seen as woman's work rather than mens...certainly, in things culinary, my own grandmother tended not to trust men with anything more complex than shucking peas!

All the best

Dave

Growing up in Appalachia meant that life was often light years behind, say, California.

My father, born in 1918, hunted: rabbits and squirrels here in the East Tennessee mountains. He also did the skinning and gutting before the game was taken inside for my mother to cook it.

We kids were often put to work holding parts (like legs and feet if I recall correctly) while he skinned.

Perhaps each family has its own way of doing things, but that's how things were at our house. We all, male and female alike, broke beans and peeled peaches for my mother to can or freeze.

[Cogidubnus]

Ah yes, but as we discussed earlier, unlike Appalachia, there weren't that host of wild animals galloping the streets of Whitechapel and most born city-dwelling males just wouldn't get that crucial skinning and gutting time in...(I except of course butchers and slaughtermen)...

I thought the point Colin raised was interesting though...the uterus (being uniquely female) is explicable ripper-wise, but what was the relevance of the kidney (which is common to both sexes) ?

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

The Kidney

I thought the point Colin raised was interesting though...the uterus (being uniquely female) is explicable ripper-wise, but what was the relevance of the kidney (which is common to both sexes) ?

All the best

Dave

Thanks, Dave. I just don't see a sexual serial-killer taking a kidney as a trophy (at least, not when he has the uterus) but presumably there was a reason, however perverse.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bride. If sex murderers wouldn't likely take a kidney, and the Ripper took a kidney, what does that say to you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

The Kidney

Hi Bride. If sex murderers wouldn't likely take a kidney, and the Ripper took a kidney, what does that say to you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi, Tom,

Either that the murder wasn't committed by a sexual serial killer -
- or that it was, but that there was a secondary motive for taking the kidney.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

modus tollens

Hello Tom.

"If sex murderers wouldn't likely take a kidney, and the Ripper took a kidney, what does that say to you?"

Ah! The power of modus tollens!

Cheers.
LC

[SarahLee]

Hi, Tom,

Either that the murder wasn't committed by a sexual serial killer -
- or that it was, but that there was a secondary motive for taking the kidney.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hope you don't mind me adding to your list, but other possibilities that come to mind are:

- or that it was committed by a sexual serial killer, but that there was a secondary person involved in taking the kidney

- or that it was committed by a sexual serial killer, who mistakenly removed the kidney, thinking that he'd grasped a part of the reproductive system.

- or that we're misinterpreting what a sexual serial killer would do, and in fact, in his mind a kidney did have some sexual significance.

- or that we're misinterpreting what a sexual serial killer would do and the specific organs themselves had little meaning to him - he achieved gratification simply by extracting bits from their abdomens.


I don't particularly subscribe to any of them, but they may prompt some more discussion.

[Tom_Wescott]

Good thoughts, Sarah. I'm not so sure the killer even knew that he had grabbed a kidney. It might just be like when we go to the store to buy one thing, but end up leaving with five.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

- or that we're misinterpreting what a sexual serial killer would do, and in fact, in his mind a kidney did have some sexual significance.

I think we might be, Sarah.

The kidney was from a female after all, and the killer knew that when he got it home. Mark Dixie was a sexual serial offender who took a female victim's mobile phone as a trophy. Maybe it was pink or something, but a phone is a phone and not a particularly sexual object.

Men can also have a 'thing' about female parts like ears, necks, knees or ankles and so on - but normally these would remain attached to the female concerned and she would remain alive.

I certainly don't think it's any coincidence that no sick or homeless old men or young boys were found mutilated, even though Whitechapel would have had its fair share of vulnerable males out at all hours, including male prostitutes no doubt.

It seems the killer was only interested in murdering and mutilating adult women, and unfortunates would in most cases have made the going easy for him. Any woman who appeared the type to ply her trade or beg for money would have seemed fair game.

Love,

Caz
X

[Hunter]

Good thoughts, Sarah. I'm not so sure the killer even knew that he had grabbed a kidney.

He knew, because he didn't just grab it.

[SarahLee]

Good thoughts, Sarah. I'm not so sure the killer even knew that he had grabbed a kidney. It might just be like when we go to the store to buy one thing, but end up leaving with five.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thank you Tom . . . although I've just come home from shopping, and those impulse purchases near to the checkout have now taken on a whole different perspective in my mind (maybe that mental image will save me a few pounds next time I go shopping )

He knew, because he didn't just grab it.

And that's one of the dilemmas isn't it? I haven't studied Kate in anything like enough detail to form an opinion, but did he deliberately seek out the kidney to take it or did he take it because it happened to be just another organ that his hand chanced upon?

[SarahLee]

I think we might be, Sarah.

The kidney was from a female after all, and the killer knew that when he got it home. Mark Dixie was a sexual serial offender who took a female victim's mobile phone as a trophy. Maybe it was pink or something, but a phone is a phone and not a particularly sexual object.

Hi Caz,

A mobile phone? It just goes to show how difficult it can be to piece together what the true motivation may have been. I can imagine all sorts of speculation as to why he may have taken her phone (robbery, a desire to delay identifying her body etc) and most of it would have been way off the mark.

That idea also opens up a whole other can of worms about what if anything he may have taken from other victims.

It seems the killer was only interested in murdering and mutilating adult women, and unfortunates would in most cases have made the going easy for him. Any woman who appeared the type to ply her trade or beg for money would have seemed fair game.

Love,

Caz
X

That's pretty much my take on it too . . . although I reserve the right to change my mind once I start looking into things in more detail

[Bridewell]

Hope you don't mind me adding to your list, but other possibilities that come to mind are:

- or that it was committed by a sexual serial killer, but that there was a secondary person involved in taking the kidney

- or that it was committed by a sexual serial killer, who mistakenly removed the kidney, thinking that he'd grasped a part of the reproductive system.

- or that we're misinterpreting what a sexual serial killer would do, and in fact, in his mind a kidney did have some sexual significance.

- or that we're misinterpreting what a sexual serial killer would do and the specific organs themselves had little meaning to him - he achieved gratification simply by extracting bits from their abdomens.


I don't particularly subscribe to any of them, but they may prompt some more discussion.

Hi Sarah,

I don't mind at all. I agree with your thinking too.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Caz. Killers take phones all the time, because it has pictures of the victim on it, and information about their friends and relatives. Occasionally they'll use it to call the family. It's the same as stealing a purse, which has their personal info and photos in it. Very much a sexual thing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Blimey Tom...Again I find myself in agreement with you...I'm ashamed to admit this makes me almost as uncomfortable as when I agree with Trevor!

I believe you're quite right nonetheless!

Every good wish

Dave