"Down On Whores"

[Ginger]

Are you trying to shatter my illusions about fluffy bunnies running around the streets of Whitechapel?

I'd suspect that it was one of the cheaper available meats though, due to the relative ease of acquiring it compared to meats that need to be farmed - and probably no shortage of people willing to bring it into London to sell.

Recall that John Richardson owned at least one rabbit. It may have been a pet, but I think it's equally likely that it may have been for food. I suspect having a rabbit or two in a hutch out back may have been a fairly common practice for the urban poor who were well off enough to have permanent lodgings.

[Tom_Wescott]

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!

Are you comparing me to Trevor? One of us is a genius who has thoroughly researched this case and is virtually always right and never loses an argument. The other has sold a ton of books and gets paid to talk about the Ripper and...wait...okay, maybe I'm not the smarter one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Comparing Ripperologists.

"One of us is a genius who has thoroughly researched this case and is virtually always right and never loses an argument."

The other is Tom Wescott.

Regards,

Simon

[SarahLee]

Recall that John Richardson owned at least one rabbit. It may have been a pet, but I think it's equally likely that it may have been for food. I suspect having a rabbit or two in a hutch out back may have been a fairly common practice for the urban poor who were well off enough to have permanent lodgings.

And of course if you have 2 rabbits, you soon have more !!!

Along with Curious's recollections maybe that wasn't such a daft suggestion of mine, but who knows?
Do we have anyone here who's studied this aspect of the urban LVP?

Unfortunately, like Curious most of the family tradition that I could draw on is in a rural / semi-rural setting.

[Albert]

T'other half

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?[/QUOTE]


Perhaps he really did fry half of it........just a thought

[Bridewell]

Who Knows?

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?

Perhaps he really did fry half of it........just a thought

Hi Albert,

Welcome to the Boards.

Took the uterus as a trophy and the kidney because he had a nasty practical joke in mind? The possibility can't be altogether discounted, in my view, because the kidney is (I'm told) not that easy to find. Doubly difficult if you weren't even looking for it, I would have thought. It sounds as though you believe the Lusk Letter may not be a hoax?

Regards, Bridewell.

[fireskin]

Another possible theory for fun,

if Jack was Jewish, the idea that sex is only for reproduction is very strong in that religion (at least, the orthodox and more devout secular Jews). That motherhood is really the only reason to have sex. But prostitutes are sex without motherhood or reproduction in the equation (even if they do have kids).

Many, if not most, serial killers seem to have mother issues. Perhaps he targeted older prostitutes because they should have been being mothers.

[fireskin]

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

Actually, what if he'd mistaken it for an ovary initially, in the dark and the rush?

[Callie]

Hi Bridewell,

You are correct: the kidney is hard to locate. I can’t help thinking that he had some degree of medical understanding. Not like doctor per say but enough understanding to locate the kidney and remove it. At night and with little light no less.

I don’t think we will ever definitively know why he chose to take the organs he did. They obviously held meaning to him, demented meaning but meaning none the less.

Has anyone ever wondered why he removed the breasts (on some)? I have a quittance that is a forensic psychologist and in his opinion removing a woman’s breast is a way of de-feminizing and/or humiliating her. I somewhat lean towards that theory but it is foolish to discount that he might have just wanted to sans any ulterior motives.

regards,

Cheryl

[Hunter]

Hi, Fireskin, and welcome to Casebook.

Actually, what if he'd mistaken it [the kidney] for an ovary initially, in the dark and the rush?

Both organs are distinct in their own way and in quite different locations; each difficult to recognize or to locate without some prior knowledge.

[SarahLee]

No argument from me on the kidney being hard to locate and remove (that’s one I’m more than happy to accept on face value). The problem for me though, is that it gives us two possible ways of interpreting it :

> The kidney is very hard to locate and remove, therefore it must have been a deliberate act rather than something that our killer happened across by chance. Given the timeframe and lack of light, there must have been some medical skill involved.

> The kidney is hard to locate and remove, and given the timeframe and lack of light it would have been nigh on impossible to deliberately extract it - therefore it must have been luck / pure chance that the kidney was happened upon when our killer was feeling around for an organ to take.

I’m inclined to go along with the second one personally, but both are equally plausible.

[Hunter]

Hi Sarah,

The killer made several cuts into the left lobe of the liver. The pancreas and the spleen were cut as well as the peritoneal lining directly over the kidney. Now that's a lot of cutting in one small area for the killer to just have happened upon an organ that is lodged against the ribs; hidden by the peritoneal lining which encases most of the other lower abdominal organs and protected by a fatty membrane.

If the killer was just feeling around for an organ, there were many others in his way before he reached that kidney. Yet he cut through them and proceeded on; removing the kidney by not just grabbing and pulling, but cutting the renal artery to detach it.

[SarahLee]

Hi Hunter,

Apologies for the vile imagery, but if you were feeling about randomly for another organ to grab I'd supposed that a kidney might be an attractive prospect since it's a size and shape that would fit comfortably into the average male hand. By grab, I'd envisaged grasping hold of it, and after deciding that it might be something worth taking, pulling on it before cutting it loose with the knife in the other hand . . . causing the other damage in the process.

I'm afraid you lost me with the peritoneal lining and fatty membrane though.
Looking at a basic anatomical diagram, it looks (to my untrained eye) as though once the intestines had been shifted out of the way, if you were rooting around in the cavity left behind then the kidneys wouldn't be too far out of reach.
However, that's about as far as my medical understanding goes. Which organs would be enclosed in the peritoneal lining? And the fatty membrane I assume would enclose the kidneys themselves???

[Cogidubnus]

Hmm....

All this rooting and grabbing...makes me think, not being funny, these really are intensely sexual crimes aren't they? (Or, nodding to Lynn, at least the original ones were)...to my mind there's something almost mithraic about some aspects (though Ashtoreth or Demeter would know more of the sacrifices)...

Dave

[Callie]

Hunter-

I agree with you completely. I think to the “naked eye” it appears all JTR did was slash and mutilate with abandon but on closer inspection he was very controlled in the mutilations. He would have to be in order to get an intact kidney.

Think about it, he knew he would have to cut through the peritoneal lining, the fatty membrane and then move the other organs just so he would have access to the kidney. And let’s not forget that he didn’t just yank and tear the kidney to remove it…he cut the renal artery.

I think the more I start to understand aspects of this case the more (to my chagrin) I realize I don’t and have to reevaluate would I believe to be true,

Regards,
Cheryl