our killer been local

[pinkmoon]

We don't know that he took the organs home. He may have, but then again he may also have thrown them to the first dog or cat that crossed his path.
Don't you think the idea that he took the organs home has been inspired more by the From Hell letter than anything else?

The extra time our killer spent removing organs from his victims increased his chances of been caught so the organs must have been special to him I can't see him tossing them away.

[Fisherman]

I think it was Chikatilo who chewed on an organ while on his way home. He had no intention of taking it home either. I'm really asking, why is it necessary to assume the killer must take the organ home? Clearly it is not always the case.

That was Chikatilo alright - and it was a uterus, to boot...

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

The extra time our killer spent removing organs from his victims increased his chances of been caught so the organs must have been special to him I can't see him tossing them away.

If any particular organ was so important then wouldn't we expect him to take the same organ every time?

No, it is quite possible that it is the removing of the organs that was important to him (look what I can do!), what is done with the organs afterwards is secondary.

[Tom_Wescott]

The extra time our killer spent removing organs from his victims increased his chances of been caught so the organs must have been special to him I can't see him tossing them away.

Yet you can't see him chancing being caught with chalk and writing a graffiti?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

If any particular organ was so important then wouldn't we expect him to take the same organ every time?

No, it is quite possible that it is the removing of the organs that was important to him (look what I can do!), what is done with the organs afterwards is secondary.

Robert Ackermann, the cannibal of Vienna springs to mind - he was not looking for any specific organ as he took his neighbour apart, he was just genuinely happy to be able to satisfy his urge to see what a person looks like on the inside.
If that sort of curiosity was the Ripper´s driving force, then it can be argued that he kept at it, as long as he did not get to go the full stretch. Then, with Kelly, he got to do it all, and then the urge was satisfied.

It would fit the canonical five nicely.

I don´t think that this was what happened myself, but it is an alley that deserves exploring just like you imply, Jon.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

It's possible that the important part was that she not have that organ anymore, not that he have it. Like, he wasn't attached to the uterus, but he needed to take it away from her as punishment. And if that were so, he could have fed the organs to cats or tossed them down a storm drain.

It doesn't seem likely, but it's possible.

[The Good Michael]

I think the taking of something was important and the devouring of it was a solidification of the ownership he had over the victim.

Mike

[Wickerman]

.... And if that were so, he could have fed the organs to cats or tossed them down a storm drain.

Actually, on either side of the archway, but more importantly just to the right at the entrance to 108-119, where the piece of apron was found, there was a below-ground feature. We see a cellar window behind railings.
We have no indication that the police checked the rubbish at the bottom of this feature. The killer could have cast the apron containing the organ(s) and the parcel unfolds as it hit the wall, the contents ending up, not on the footpath but down the in the pit behind the railings, out of sight and into the rubbish in the dark hole.

The police were not thinking that the killer used the apron to wrap the organs, they only assumed he wiped his hands on it, so they were not looking for the missing organs at this location.

[curious4]

Organs

Quite tempted to quote Dylan Thomas here but will refrain.

If he took the organs with him - and this appears to be common to all the later murders, except Liz Stride, of course - there would be no point in taking them just to throw them away. The kidney, if it was sent by the killer, was preserved (spirits of wine, I believe) so perhaps he kept his "souvenirs" preserved, so that he could bring them out and look at them. Would have been quite nasty quite soon otherwise.

Besr wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Why remove them from Mary Kelly, not to take them away?

[curious4]

Mary Kelly

Hello Wickerman,

Her heart was missing, wasn't it?

Best wishes,
C4

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Curious,

Yes, it was. But why didn't he 'raid the store', so to speak? I don't think he was a cannibal at all. Nor do I suspect black magic, though who knows with such a kook.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious4]

Other organs

Hello Tom,

I have always thought that it was because it was something he didn't have in his " collection". I believe part of the lung was missing as well, so now he had bladder, uteri, but previously no heart or lung tissue. I'm not sure we can read anything into him taking the heart for other reasons.

Best wishes,
C4

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, if he was chomping down, then the heart would be the last thing he took. I don't recall reading that a piece of lung was missing, but of course he took a kidney and uteri. The heart is like the Elvis of organs though, so it makes sense in a sick kind of way.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious4]

Cannibal?

Hello Tom,

Yes, you are right - it only says part of the lung was torn away, not that it was missing.

I suppose he does say that he ate half of Kate's kidney, so it is feasible that he ate the organs, although a kidney does look more like something one would eat. Isn't a pig's kidney supposed to look exactly like a human kidney?

Best wishes,
C4