Facial Mutilations

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Would you be comfortable in having the assailant taking both uteri, but ONLY the kidney being taken by medical personnel?

Note the VERY different description of HOW the kidney was taken.

Cheers.
LC

No, because my objection isn't the skill level or even the differences in the skill level, Which I think is odd but not out of line. It's still hard to get in that shed, it requires cooperation to get you in that shed, and I don't at all see that cooperation being forthcoming for any reasonable price on those days with those bodies. It would not be dissimilar to someone sneaking into a morgue today and taking a kidney from say, Jonbenet Ramsey, or Sharon Tate.

Think about it this way. You want a uterus, there is a dead body you could in theory get access to (because you don't know for sure). There are cops outside, a guard outside the door, and attendants possibly inside. And they are all agitated, because apparently this murder was something horrific. On par with Lipski. And the Coroner is on his way. What can you think of to say or do to get past the cops, past the guard, maybe convince the attendants to step out, and make sure none of them ever say anything about it? And given the extra security and the special importance of the case, how hard would it be to wait for the next dead woman?

It's a cost/benefit thing. Professionals calculate that every time. It's the main reason why people trust them and help them. A professional does not look at this particular job as a good risk.

What would make you let some random guy with a knife kit in to see a murdered woman, against orders? What would make you leave him alone with her? And how the hell do you explain that to the dozen or so people who were in a position to see you let that guy in? Even if your moral compass lets you do that, you would need to paid enough to compensate for the fact that you will never get another job as long as you live if you get caught. These guys weren't stupid. And everyone who saw the guy go in also has to paid off extravagantly. Because even if they don't talk to the cops, the press is hounding them for even the smallest detail, and the reporters pay too. And they pay well for you to do something that is not against the law. You could tell a reporter about the guy who got in and took a body part before the coroner showed up. And what human in 1888 could afford for THAT story to be on the front page, with the ire of a city of 4 million people focused on them? Because they may or may not find the killer, but the guy who mutilated the corpse? That guy can be found easily.

Let's say you are an art thief, and someone asks you to get them a Picasso. Any Picasso. You could walk into a gallery in the middle of the day with guards and a few patrons, and with a combination of bribes and generally looking like you belong, you might get away with it. It is insanely risky, a lot can go wrong, and you can be betrayed at any time. OR you can wait a week until another guy who owns a Picasso goes out of town, at which point you can pick the lock to his apartment in the middle of the night and just walk out with it. If all you need is a Picasso, not any specific Picasso, which do you choose?

[Wickerman]

...
Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why the killer would want to take a second uterus when he already has one and an opportunity to take other organs.

Why are you assuming he still has the first uterus, from 3 weeks earlier?

[c.d.]

Hello Trevor,

That is a hard question to answer because no one knows why he was taking organs in the first place.

If here were selling the organs then I would think that he would be careful in opening up the abdomen as you say. Not so, if he intended to eat them or use them in some other way.

As far as taking a second uterus, again that is a hard question to answer since we don't know why he took one in the first place. It is possible that they were more valuable or significant to him in some way as compared to other organs.

People collect all sorts of things and it is not unusual for them to have multiples of the same thing in their collections.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

So are you saying that we should be surprised that a killer who takes a uterus in the first place doesn't behave in a rational, consistent manner?

c.d.

I am questioning the logic of taking a second when you have one. If you are a killer and you know you are going take trophies in the first instance you are rational to a certain degree are you not?

Also if taking organs was part of the overall scheme why mutilate the abdomens in such a way that might damage the intended organs?

Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why the killer would want to take a second uterus when he already has one and an opportunity to take other organs. If organ harvesting was the motive besides murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

No but those on here who keep suggesting the organs were taken by the killer as trophies need to wise up and ask themselves that same question.

If you have one why do you need another why not take another body part, i.e. and ear, a breast, two breasts, or the vagina itself.

It should also be noted that entry to the abdomens of both Chapman and Eddowes was by different methods, that indicates two different people.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

So are you saying that we should be surprised that a killer who takes a uterus in the first place doesn't behave in a rational, consistent manner?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are we to believe that taking one uterus is normal behavior and socially acceptable but taking two is somehow bizarre?

c.d.

No but those on here who keep suggesting the organs were taken by the killer as trophies need to wise up and ask themselves that same question.

If you have one why do you need another why not take another body part, i.e. and ear, a breast, two breasts, or the vagina itself.

It should also be noted that entry to the abdomens of both Chapman and Eddowes was by different methods, that indicates two different people.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

Anything's possible in the world of Marriott. From sneaky organ thieves at the mortuary to giant rats running around with 'menstrual rags', but the idea that a violent serial killer could've pulled out a woman's innards is sheer lunacy.

Indeed, Harry. The streets of Whitechapel were filled with copy cat killers, killers who focused on uteri, other killers who had a preference for kidneys, left handed killers, right handed killers, ambidextrous killers, killers who cut throats in parallel lines, single cut killers, and jilted lovers who flipped out and took out their rage by ripping out intestines. Oh yeah and a few lunatics and wacked out mortuary attendants.

Throw in a club conspiracy and a police cover up too. It was one crazy ass place in the Fall of 1888.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Errata. Would you be comfortable in having the assailant taking both uteri, but ONLY the kidney being taken by medical personnel?

Note the VERY different description of HOW the kidney was taken.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Just so I am clear here -- the mortuary attendant is a different person than the killer, correct?

If so, it must have been terribly frustrating for him having to wait for a chopped up woman to come in so he could do his thing without it being discovered.

c.d.

[c.d.]

There are some arguments that catch me totally off guard. I never saw this one coming, for example.

Are we to believe that taking one uterus is normal behavior and socially acceptable but taking two is somehow bizarre?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

If the killer had taken chapmans uterus why would he want to take another?

There are some arguments that catch me totally off guard. I never saw this one coming, for example.

[Trevor Marriott]

Anything's possible in the world of Marriott. From sneaky organ thieves at the mortuary to giant rats running around with 'menstrual rags', but the idea that a violent serial killer could've pulled out a woman's innards is sheer lunacy.

Lunacy
You need to take a look back at some of your posts both on this thread and the whitechapel mystery then you can see lunacy in its true form

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Errata. Would you be comfortable in having the assailant taking both uteri, but ONLY the kidney being taken by medical personnel?

Note the VERY different description of HOW the kidney was taken.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lyn
That could have been because the bodies were taken to 2 different mortuaries and organs removed by two different persons.

That could also explain why two uteri were taken. If the killer had taken chapmans uterus why would he want to take another?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Anything's possible in the world of Marriott. From sneaky organ thieves at the mortuary to giant rats running around with 'menstrual rags', but the idea that a violent serial killer could've pulled out a woman's innards is sheer lunacy.

[lynn cates]

kidney

Hello Errata. Would you be comfortable in having the assailant taking both uteri, but ONLY the kidney being taken by medical personnel?

Note the VERY different description of HOW the kidney was taken.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

My reading of the evidence suggests that we have an opportunist who struck at easy targets. (Or opportunists, plural, if you like). I don't see that it's at all necessary to conclude that we have a "stalker" of "actively soliciting" street-women.

Its been a while since you and I have exchanged comments Gareth, I hope you're well and having a great summer. I would hope that you would agree Sam that almost every published characterization of a Ripper victim includes the term Prostitute, though it seems unclear whether Kate or Liz had done any of that sort of activity in the summer leading up to that Fall, or more specifically, at the time of their murders, respectively. We can say that Mary must either have been soliciting and then spending without paying rent for a few weeks, or that she was out earning less at the time of her murder.

Cheers Sam