"Down On Whores"

[Hunter]

Hi Callie, Sarah.

The peritoneal lining is like a sack that encases all of the lower abdominal organs except the kidneys, which are retro-peritoneal.

The killer cut through the front part of this 'sack' when he initially sliced through the abdominal skin. He still had to cut through the back part of the parietal peritoneum to get at the kidney. There were a lot of cuts in one centralized area - all relating to the position of the left kidney.

He did cut two feet of the large intestines away, but I believe that was a result of trying to get at the uterus and in 'haste' accidentally cutting through the colon, causing an effusion of its contents. He was forced to cut that section and remove it to stop the spillage at the pubic region and tuck the remaining lower portion (the sigmoid flexure) into the rectum.

With the large intestines detached, he threw the remaining portion over the victim's shoulder with the small intestines, accounting for Mr. Brown's description of fecal matter being all over the intestines that had been displaced there.

[Callie]

Honestly, I dont think the driving motive for the killings was the actual killings I believe it was the mutilations, dissections and organ "harvesting". The womens appearance probably held little interest for him; they were just the vessel he was going to use. Being a prostitue just made it easy for him to get alone with her.

[curious]

He was forced to cut that section and remove it to stop the spillage at the pubic region and tuck the remaining lower portion (the sigmoid flexure) into the rectum.

Hi, Hunter,
Just curious about what type background would prepare a person to know to do that in an emergency?

Any ideas?

Thx,

curious

[Hunter]

Hi Curious,

It would be easy to say some sort of medical background or at least a butcher but its not that simple. If the nature of these murders involved some type of fantasy on the part of the killer, he could have learned some basic anatomy on his own from books, illustrated pamphlets...etc. The fantasy is acted out in their mind over and over; kind of like a rehearsal. Real experience would not necessarily be required, but is possible.

The cutting through Kate's colon was an accident causing her killer to make some quick adjustments. Someone with 'skill' probably wouldn't have made that mistake. It may seem like a matter of semantics, but there is a great difference between anatomical skill and anatomical knowledge. The environment that these murders were perpetrated in, the instrument used, and the motivation of the murderer were quite different than that of a skilled professional, so even if someone of that capacity was involved, it would not necessarily show in the evidence.

One thing is for certain to me...whoever did this acquired some knowledge somehow. One could see any twisted individual cutting off breast, slashing the face, or even stabbing or cutting the external genitalia. But targeting the uterus, knowing what it is and where it is located is a totally different realm. And taking this small, flaccid internal organ out and placing it under a woman's head is significant.

I have no idea who killed any of these women, nor have I ever entertained the notion of a particular 'suspect'. I believe such an endeavor is an exercise in futility and is actually immoral, even though I understand the 'whodunnit' part is the major interest for most people. But I have little doubt that one person committed these crimes. What was perpetrated here was unique on several levels and would be difficult (even if possible) to emulate unless there were two people with identical mental characteristics and a willingness to take extraordinary risks.

[lynn cates]

tyro

Hello Cris.

"The cutting through Kate's colon was an accident causing her killer to make some quick adjustments. Someone with 'skill' probably wouldn't have made that mistake."

Completely agree. Looks like a tyro to me.

Cheers.
LC

[SarahLee]

Thank you for the explanation Hunter

With that extra piece of information about the kidneys being outside the peritoneal lining (therefore requiring a cut through the back of it) your original post now makes a lot more sense to me . . . and also has me re-evaluating my earlier assumptions.

[Tom_Wescott]

From the pulpit of Reverend Hunter

I believe such an endeavor is an exercise in futility and is actually immoral.

Hi Hunter. As someone who has researched and published about a suspect, I'd like to know how I'm being immoral.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious]

The cutting through Kate's colon was an accident causing her killer to make some quick adjustments. Someone with 'skill' probably wouldn't have made that mistake. It may seem like a matter of semantics, but there is a great difference between anatomical skill and anatomical knowledge.

In the latest edition of the New Indy Review, Mike Hawley wrote about Tumblety’s anatomical collection. In that article he mentioned The Florentine Venus, which reminded me a great deal of how Mary Kelly's body was found.

Since reading about these exhibits, I have wondered if JtR had seen one, or several?

Are you familiar with a Florentine Venus? What do you think the possibility is that someone could have learned enough about female anatomy from them to commit these crimes?

[Hunter]

Hi Hunter. As someone who has researched and published about a suspect, I'd like to know how I'm being immoral.

Hi Tom,

I was wondering who might take the bait.
Unless you believe that someone was definitely Jack the Ripper, (and I don't get the impression that you do) I don't believe merely examining a person of interest or a contemporary suspect is immoral. It is a murder mystery and therefore natural to contemplate such things. Quite often though, with some people, it transcends into much more, and as long as you've been around you know what I'm talking about. There's a very long list of innocent people who have been accused of being a serial murderer by people who seem to not possess any consciousness about what that implies.

The exercise in futility comes from my belief that the actual murderer will never be known. That's just my take. In deference to my apparent bait and switch here, I have many suspect related books and articles (including your LeGrand article in the Examiner). There is a lot of useful information in all of these beyond whether the individual in question is a palatable candidate for murdering any of these women or not.

Research of any kind is not an exercise in futility as long as its informative and applicable. Hanging someone out to actually be the murderer and let it become an obsession is that and more.

[Hunter]

In the latest edition of the New Indy Review, Mike Hawley wrote about Tumblety’s anatomical collection. In that article he mentioned The Florentine Venus, which reminded me a great deal of how Mary Kelly's body was found.
Since reading about these exhibits, I have wondered if JtR had seen one, or several?
Are you familiar with a Florentine Venus? What do you think the possibility is that someone could have learned enough about female anatomy from them to commit these crimes?

Hi Curious,

Yes, I read Mike's article and found it intriguing and it is a must read.
While researching for an upcoming article for the same publication (NIR) I came across some more interesting things about these anatomical museums in London during the Victorian Era and I'll share some of them with you.

The most famous museum of that nature - The Oxford Museum -was started by a Dr. Joseph Kahn in 1851. At first, it was acclaimed by medical professionals. Several positive reviews appeared in the Lancet. The Florentine Venus was one of his most popular attractions. This piece, as well as most of the anatomical wax figures were sculpted in France.

Kahn was most successful when he moved his exhibit to 232 Piccadilly, where it always attracted large crowds. In an era when 'female delicacies' were considered and women were often excluded from such exhibits, Kahn welcomed the entrance of women into his establishment - although they were admitted separately from the men.

To keep his anatomical works from being labeled as 'obscene', the figures were placed in poses that resembled classical sculptures - hence the title of the Florentine Venus. Of course this was hypocritical considering the legend of Venus herself.

Kahn's troubles began when he started aligning himself with associates who were labeled as quacks and the medical community turned against him. There wasn't much, legally, that could be done because the laws applied to licensed practitioners, which Kahn wasn't one. Nevertheless, the machinery was now in motion to shut him down. They finally found a way by use of the Obscene Publication Act of 1857. In early 1873, the police raided the museum and destroyed some of the figures. By the end of that year, Kahn's associates who were running the establishment were prosecuted and plead guilty to obscenity charges. The museum and another similar one in Manchester were shut down.

The Florentine Venus and other pieces escaped destruction and were transported to the U.S. to be placed in exhibits there. I recollect that Mike referenced several examples of these as they lasted much longer than their British counterparts. This is not to say that such exhibits vanished from the UK. They had to go underground and were much smaller so they could stay ahead of the authorities. Side shows and herbal remedy peddlers would display wax figures of a 'suggestive' character to draw a crowd. I believe Mike's article mentions Dr. Frederick Treves visiting one of these exibits in Whitechapel Rd.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Hunter. I had a feeling that's what you meant, I was just intrigued by your use of the word immoral. I'm inclined to agree with you on your thoughts regarding the accusation of likely innocent people of murder. My conscience is clear in putting for Le Grand as a contender because, 1) contemporary accusation makes it a matter of history, and 2) he labeled himself a murderer, rather rightly or wrongly so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

LeGrand was a pretty bad apple. Its hard to pity such a man whether he was the Whitechapel murderer or not.

[Fisherman]

Hmmm - this is interesting. My suggestion is that Cross/Lechmere was the killer, and he was emphatically NOT a bad apple - if one is to believe the picture painted of him by most people.

But if he WAS the killer, then he WAS a bad apple. Rotten, in fact. Problem is, Hunter, am I immoral in your eyes up til the point where I can conclusively prove that he was the killer?

I would not say that I am obsessed with the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper. But I would say that I am convinced that he has been inexplicably overlooked, and that there is enough material speaking against him to make him a very serious suspect. Practically, he easily outweighs the rest.

So whatīs your verdict? Am I an immoral person - who may just be correct?

I find the discussion as such fascinating. To my mind, I would say that I think there is a correlation between the amount of evidence that points to guilt for a suspect and the amount of immorality the proposer should be accused of, if you take my meaning. Light-heartedly proposing Lewis Carroll for the Ripperīs role is not a very moral thing to do (though Carroll himself wonīt mind by now), but proposing a man like Lechmere would be another thing, the way I look upon things.

Finally, I think we need to accept that there is a backside to the medallion here. The pursuit of the Ripper is to a not insignificant degree governed by a feeling that justice was not served back in 1888. In that regard, few tasks could be more moral than looking for him. In a sense, by searching the Ripper out we are championing the rights of the women that fell prey to the killer 124 years ago. That is a morally fuelled stamina that carries some weight...!

All the best, Hunter!
Fisherman

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Fisherman

I am sorry but I fail to see why a Ripperologist or researcher should be accused of immorality for proposing a suspect. Unless you are talking about someone who provably fakes evidence or blatantly distorts the truth, I don't see how immorality comes into it. Now, as we know, most theorists will to some extent have their thumb on the scale in terms of arguing for their suspect or else tend to ignore exculpatory evidence, i.e., information that might tend to exonerate their suspect. Nonetheless, the vast majority of people who have proposed a suspect should not be thought of as immoral for having done so. If immorality really came into it a lot of us would be in deep trouble.

Best regards

Chris

[Albert]

the kidney

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.

Hi Bridewell, Thanks for the welcome - despite the arguments against this kidney being Kate's and it being the result of a medical student's prank etc., I still think this could be the real thing, and if it is then the letter cannot be a hoax. On the other hand, why send it to Lusk and not the police? I'm easily confused!!
Regards
Albert