Catherine Eddowes' Kidney

[FrankO]

You make some very valid points.

I think part of the reason why there was around a 9 month gap between Kelly and McKenzie, was because the coroner at Kelly's inquest essentially shut it down before it had chance to develop.
The coroner took a different approach to his predecessor and rather than adjourn the inquest in a bid to gather further evidence, the coroner chose to close the inquest very abruptly; relative to the previous murders.

This decision effectively nullified the killer's work and it gave the press a lot less to work with in terms of case progression.
I belive this was a brilliant move and I can imagine the Ripper's rage at his work being closed down at the official inquest, rather than being stretched out to accommodate the press and their bid to sell newspapers.

It is perhaps then rather odd that just after the inquest closed, a man arrived at the police station to give a statement about an extravagant looking man he had seen with the victim.
George Hutchinson's elaborate and over detailed statement isn't the most suspicious element to him having come forward... it's his timing.

Suspicious indeed.

I agree that Hutchinson's timing for coming forward is suspicious in the sense that he seems to have come forward because he learned that he'd been spotted watching the entrance to the court on the night of the murder and that he presented a suspect that seems larger than life (not really the way he was dressed, but the details Hutchinson was able to give, given the circumstances). Whether Hutchinson had anything to do with the murder, would be another matter.

Cheers,
Frank

[bonestrewn]

Hi bonestrewn,

I read that the kidney, as the heart, had/has a religious significance. The kidneys are cited figuratively as the site of temperament, emotions, prudence, vigor, and wisdom. I can't see much of a relevance of this in the cutting out an taking away of Eddowes's kidney, other than the eating of part of it would give all of her emotions, prudence, etc. to her killer. Or at least, that he might have seen it like that. Who knows?

An idea of mine has been that he was trying to get to her heart (higher up in her body and on the left side) and that he 'stumbled' on the left kidney instead. It's just an idea, not something I'd put much stock in or stress.

All the best,
Frank

Frank, thank you so much for the reply!

I'm curious about the associations with temperance, prudence, and wisdom. This also brings to mind the assessment of the Lusk kidney as a "ginny kidney," and the association of alcoholism with Catherine Eddowes having Bright's disease. While I don't want to assume the killer's specific intentions, I do think it's interesting that he targeted two organs which symbolized the central characteristics of the female unfortunate underclass (the uterus of course, and then the organ meant to symbolize temperance and which was believed to demonstrate a lack thereof via symptoms of Bright's disease).

Your heart theory is very interesting, especially given the removal of Mary Kelly's heart. I think the heart also has a much more immediate and obvious symbolism that would be legible to anyone, if one assumes the Ripper was trying to, erm, "express himself" to the public as his killings escalated.

[c.d.]

Hello bonestrewn, welcome to the boards.

I have to say I have never been very big on the whole symbolism thing. The problem is what do we pick and choose to be significant and where does it end? Was it significant that Jack cut throats? Why not a blow to the head instead? And if the kidney or uterus had some significance what about the nose or the breasts or ears? What did cutting the flesh from Mary's leg symbolize? I think you see the problem. I think he was just into cutting.

c.d.

[bonestrewn]

Hello bonestrewn, welcome to the boards.

I have to say I have never been very big on the whole symbolism thing. The problem is what do we pick and choose to be significant and where does it end? Was it significant that Jack cut throats? Why not a blow to the head instead? And if the kidney or uterus had some significance what about the nose or the breasts or ears? What did cutting the flesh from Mary's leg symbolize? I think you see the problem. I think he was just into cutting.

c.d.

Hi C.D.! Thanks so much for the welcome and the response.

I definitely understand your take. We don't really know what any of his actions meant to the Ripper, or if they meant anything at all.

That said, I do believe that the Ripper was conscious of his killings as public acts, and I don't think it's a reach to read meaning into certain aspects of his decision-making. For example, while I understand the argument that the victim's death poses happened of necessity, I'm not convinced they needed their legs spread and knees up for the Ripper to slash their abdomens. So for myself, it makes sense to read a meaning into the very vulnerable state of exposure he left victims in.

In that way, I don't think it's a bridge too far to think that the choice of organs to remove might have meant something. I don't believe it was some sort of magic symbolism or anything, just that, like other organs of the body, it's possible that kidneys had a cultural meaning that the Ripper would have known about.

[Lewis C]

I agree that Hutchinson's timing for coming forward is suspicious in the sense that he seems to have come forward because he learned that he'd been spotted watching the entrance to the court on the night of the murder and that he presented a suspect that seems larger than life (not really the way he was dressed, but the details Hutchinson was able to give, given the circumstances). Whether Hutchinson had anything to do with the murder, would be another matter.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I think that Hutch's timing in coming forward is one of the less suspicious things about him. Right after the murders occurred, it was thought that the murder occurred late enough that Hutch's sighting (if it happened) didn't seem very significant. By the time that it became known by the public at large that the murder may have happened earlier than previously thought, making Hutch's testimony relevant, the inquest was close to being over. I don't know if it's realistic to expect that Hutch could have moved quickly enough, after learning the murder may have happened earlier, to have reported what he did before the inquest ended.

[Abby Normal]

I disagree with your view, RD.

If he was all about attention, publicity and playing games, he could also have done some simpler things and more things to achieve that. For instance, he could have gauged out their eyes, slash their mouths from ear to ear as was done to Elizabeth Short/Black Dahlia, or he could have cut nose, ears and/or fingers off & take them away to later send to a newspaper or the police, or he could have left bloody messages on or around the bodies or carved messages in the flesh of their face, arms or legs.

But, instead, he went for things that were less easily accessible, under their clothes and inside their bodies. So, it’s certainly not a given that he had an audience in mind while planning or executing his murders. Other than the bodies that he left at the crimes scenes, there’s nothing that points in that direction, really. Of course, he may have deliberately posed them in the way they were found, but that may also just have been the result of what he did to them and leaving as soon as he felt that he needed to. After all, to get to their abdomen, he needed them lying on their backs and, perhaps preferably, with their legs apart. He needed to get their dresses up and intestines out of the way.

Cheers,
Frank

hi frank. i agree. while i think a secondary motivation was to shock the public, his primary motivation was the pleasure he got from cutting up the female body, and specifically inside the abdoman and privates.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

I think that Hutch's timing in coming forward is one of the less suspicious things about him. Right after the murders occurred, it was thought that the murder occurred late enough that Hutch's sighting (if it happened) didn't seem very significant. By the time that it became known by the public at large that the murder may have happened earlier than previously thought, making Hutch's testimony relevant, the inquest was close to being over. I don't know if it's realistic to expect that Hutch could have moved quickly enough, after learning the murder may have happened earlier, to have reported what he did before the inquest ended.

Hi Lewis,

Perhaps you're right about it being one of the less suspicious things about him, but suspicious nonetheless. While it may have been thought by some that the murder occurred late enough for Hutchinson to feel that his testimony would be important, on the other hand he, according to his own words to Abberline, was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them, to which he added in his police statement that this even caused him to watch the entrance to the court for 3 quarters of an hour to see if they came out.

In short, as far as he knew (or could know, reading the papers), he was the last person to see Kelly alive - other than the killer. He apparently had been suspicious of the man he'd seen in Kelly's company - otherwise he wouldn't have followed the couple and waited for 45 minutes - but he didn't immediately go to the police. Perhaps, at the time he didn't think the man in Kelly's company would have wanted to kill her -or at least, that's what he told the press - but as soon as he learned about her brutal murder, he did nothing. To me, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

Cheers,
Frank

[c.d.]

but as soon as he learned about her brutal murder, he did nothing. To me, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

It does if he was reluctant to put himself at the scene and having to explain how he came by that knowledge.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

Perhaps you're right about it being one of the less suspicious things about him, but suspicious nonetheless. While it may have been thought by some that the murder occurred late enough for Hutchinson to feel that his testimony would be important, on the other hand he, according to his own words to Abberline, was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them, to which he added in his police statement that this even caused him to watch the entrance to the court for 3 quarters of an hour to see if they came out.

In short, as far as he knew (or could know, reading the papers), he was the last person to see Kelly alive - other than the killer. He apparently had been suspicious of the man he'd seen in Kelly's company - otherwise he wouldn't have followed the couple and waited for 45 minutes - but he didn't immediately go to the police. Perhaps, at the time he didn't think the man in Kelly's company would have wanted to kill her -or at least, that's what he told the press - but as soon as he learned about her brutal murder, he did nothing. To me, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

Cheers,
Frank

Good points Frank, and I do think that following them to her place and waiting there for 45 minute in bad weather at 2:00 in the morning is odd behavior. I think it's possible that he was planning to rob the man when he came out. His ultra-detailed description is also suspicious.