Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If GH was JtR where did he bring his "trophies"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Rubyretro View Post
    Abby -We already established on another thread (Offal ?), that kidneys etc would be the cheapest cuts of meat and eaten regularly by the poor (and the rich for breakfast !). There would be a grill or somewhere to cook in a lodging house, and some one producing a kidney out of a piece of paper from their pocket would be a common and daily occurrence.

    JtR apparently knew how to cut his victim's throats, after choking most of them, and keeping himself to one side, so that he would not get arterial spray on himself. He would not have been 'covered in blood'. Of course, it was probably impossible that he wouldn't get some blood spots on him -but if he was wearing tatty & stained clothing anyway, or something like a 'salt and pepper' tweed jacket, and given the lack of forensic examination, this could easily go un-noticed.

    The exception is MJK -but we know that there were other clothes in the room which he burnt in the fireplace. He could have shielded his own clothes, cleaned himself up, and then burned the evidence.

    He could have used the victims own clothes to wipe his hands & knife.

    It is fair to say that, if he could fade into the street scene after a crime, that he was not very messy !

    ps did he certainly take a heart ??? whose ?? If it was MJK's -could he not have cooked it up over that fire ?
    I agree that he was probably not as messy as thought, but even if he was, it was such a maze in WC he could walk the whole town and not meet anyone. I bet he was nude when he killed MJK but that's because I think hutchinson tricked MJK and didn't pay her afterwords. She struck out and he struck back. I believe the heart and uterus would be very hard to eat from grilling but it's possible. He only took one kidney and that was Catherine Eddowes.
    I think JTR had his own hiding place. Maybe a tunnel where he buried his trophies, etc. Could've been anywhere including his home or business.

    Comment


    • #17
      I have no direct knowledge of the Victoria Home,but I do know of institutions of that nature and of that time.There were those with dormitry style sleeping,some with private rooms,and some with both.Hutchinson is stated to be a resident,in the old meaning,long term,so it is probable he had his own separate living quarters.

      Comment


      • #18
        .
        I believe the heart and uterus would be very hard to eat from grilling but it's possible
        I don't think that I really believe that he ate them anyway. I guess that he could have stashed them as trophies -or liked to watch a dog eat them (a further humiliation for the victim ?). I don't suppose that he kept them near him anyway -too incriminating and they'd go smelly incredibly quickly.

        Harry -thanks for that. Yes, 'resident' suggests a longer term, habitual thing.
        Maybe he did have a private room.
        http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ

        Comment


        • #19
          I'm with you, Ruby...I reckon there's a reasonable chance he lobbed them into someone else's pot (a heart isn't that hard to cook, regardless of Fido' claims), or chucked them at a passing animal. I don't think there was anything 'trophy' about it, I'm afraid.
          best,

          claire

          Comment


          • #20
            I don't think there was anything 'trophy' about it, I'm afraid.
            [/QUOTE]

            I think that you've misunderstood me Claire -it's just got have a significance that he took those organs -trophies has got to be the word.

            It is hard to cook a heart -you have to stew it a long time (my husband's family are Portuguese , and unfortunately I have been dished heart & lungs
            at the table before ! -thankfully, I don't know the recipe for uterii).

            still, I don't see him as a cannibal (my opinion). I can see him feeding it to some dogs as a 'statement'. Having kept dogs (I was a shepherdess once), I can say that a dog could wolf down a heart without chewing -not because it was starving, but to establish hierarchy in a 'pack' situation if there were several dogs);

            I have no way of knowing that -only that it is possible to get rid of organs pretty easily.

            Rats would probably do the job too..

            Giving it as a present to people to cook ( no -not Portuguese), and having the secret satisfaction of imagining them scoffing it..?
            http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ

            Comment


            • #21
              Going through the trouble and danger in obtaining these organs; then leave the scene of the crime with the incriminating evidence on his person; I think it unlikely that this guy would just chuck it to some dogs or other animals. For whatever perverted reason, this activity was part of his ritual... an act to dehumanize his victims... to feel some kind of power.

              If these murders were conducted by the same person - and due to the rarity of their nature, the compact timespan and victimology the evidence points that they were - the Kelly murder is a prime example of what this miscreant had in mind. For once, he had the time to act out his fantasy... and look at what was done to her. Her face was slashed almost beyond recognition; her uterus, one kidney and one breast removed and placed under her head; the flaps of abdominal skin removed in the exact way that Annie Chapman's were and placed on the table and her heart removed and reportedly never found.

              Whatever he took away with him, I don't believe he would surrender it too easily. I don't know what he would have done with them after he made it to his lair, but he likely would have made every effort to get there with them. Of course, that's just my interpretation based on the evidence at hand and previous case studies that were mentioned by Krafft-Ebing on murderers such as this that were apprehended.
              Best Wishes,
              Hunter
              ____________________________________________

              When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

              Comment


              • #22
                Hunter -come on, I'm totally agreeing with you about the 'ritual' 'trophy' bit -and I have no idea whatever about how jtR disposed of the organs..

                It's no use loftily lobbing Kraft-Ebbing at me -I too have read around the subject, so I know that, just as no complexe human beings are exactly alike, so there is no 'blue print' for serial killers; they might have some basic
                childhood lacks in common and certain comportments -but their individual life experiences and complicating 'extras' (such as substance abuse, sexual orientations etc) mean that they have unique MOs.

                Feeding organs to dogs could be a ritual to degrade a victim in itself.

                Anyway, there is something very classically greek in having organs fed to animals -and this tells me that it's an idea as old as the hills, and in no way worth discounting...
                http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hmmm...'the Kelly murder is a prime example of what this miscreant had in mind.' I don't know why this would be selected over any of the others in the context of this argument: in fact, it would argue to the contrary, no? The report states that, 'the heart was absent,' and we are still arguing about whether that meant from the chest cavity, or from the scene. I happen to believe the latter, but even so, why is *one* organ a prime example, or why is Kelly's single organ more of a prime example than anyone else's? Surely this was his opportunity to gather as many as possible? And yet, he did not.

                  Ruby, sorry, I didn't mean to implicate you in my trophy statement; just with the notion that it may well have given him a kick to dispose of the organs in nasty ways. But I have to disagree regarding hearts and their preparation for food: they may take a while, but they're not that hard to prepare, were common fare in the 19th Century, and I'm afraid that I just don't believe that common lodgers would have turned one down, or that they would have referred to Alexis Soyer for cooking tips.

                  And, lastly, to throw someone else's moggy amongst the pigeons, it's not new to suggest that some of that organ harvesting most certainly was not done for trophy purposes, but for pecuniary advantage...should one wish to believe that.

                  Assigning motive to an unknown perpetrator is messy at the best of times; getting hung up on what aberrations our man might perform on 'trophies' is only going to lead to a whole range of assumptions about his living circumstances that become adopted as truisms simply because we have assumed ritual on his behalf. It may have been enough just to feel it in his pocket while he high-tailed it to St. Katherine's Dock to sling it in the river.
                  best,

                  claire

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Oh, Ruby, I think Hunter was lobbing Krafft-Ebing at me... As you say, there's no prescription in his theory or any others in the canon.
                    best,

                    claire

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hi Claire, Rubyretro,

                      Both of your responses were excellent. As I said, this was just my opinion. Since we really don't know the 'why', evidence and other case studies are all that we sometimes can go by.

                      Ruby, your point about putting a 'blueprint', so to speak, on any unknown murderer such as this is well taken... and I would add that some of Krafft-Ebings assumptions about this type of person -i.e.- masturbation - are now known to be in error. But some of the men that had previously killed in this fashion were interviewed, and their explanations for their behaviour were quite astounding.

                      My using Kelly as an example was not so much for the fact that her heart may have been taken away, but what he did with the other organs in situ and how that relates to what was done to Chapman and Eddowes.

                      I apologize for appearing lofty and will refrain from interfering with this discussion.
                      Best Wishes,
                      Hunter
                      ____________________________________________

                      When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Gah, Hunter, don't refrain :-/ I'm not a fan of this recent trend on here that, if one disagrees, then one ought to refrain from participation on the topic. Truth emerges from the dialectical process--and there's my lofty contribution for the evening
                        best,

                        claire

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by claire View Post
                          Truth emerges from the dialectical process....
                          I love it when claire talks posh. And she's absolutely right. Some of the skins around here are starting to get too thin. Believe me, if you offer an opinion, someone will stomp on it. So what? Stomping is easy, but good opinions will ultimately prevail.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Going through the trouble and danger in obtaining these organs; then leave the scene of the crime with the incriminating evidence on his person; I think it unlikely that this guy would just chuck it to some dogs or other animals. For whatever perverted reason, this activity was part of his ritual... an act to dehumanize his victims... to feel some kind of power.

                            Couldnít agree more, Hunter. Equally, we know that Albert Fish remained in a continuous state of hypersexuality during the nine or so days he cooked and ate the flesh of one of his child victims. This same sexual component was also alluded to by Arthur Shawcross as he recounted one of his child murders: ďI cut parts of him out and ate them. I took his penis, his balls and heart and ate them. Why I did this I donít know. I also had sex with his body.Ē Given the frequency with which this theme occurs within the annals of the sadosexual serialist, it may be safely assumed that the primary motivation behind the Ripperís abduction of internal organs lay in a desire to enrich his postcrime autoerotic fantasies. Although incomprehensible to many, such behaviour does have less extreme parallels Ė the man who steals panties from washing lines, for example.

                            I have no direct knowledge of the Victoria Home,but I do know of institutions of that nature and of that time.There were those with dormitry style sleeping,some with private rooms,and some with both.Hutchinson is stated to be a resident,in the old meaning,long term,so it is probable he had his own separate living quarters.

                            Jack London described his short stay in the Victoria Home in The People of the Abyss, Harry. If you donít have the book, the relevant chapter is available somewhere on the internet.

                            Regards.

                            Garry Wroe.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              NoT to start another Jack London squabble,but I have read the book,and certain claims therein have led me to be very careful in believing anything that London writes.
                              Regards to you Garry.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                You, too, Harry. And, yes, I've often discerned the whiff of artistic licence when reading Jack London and Henry Mayhew. To be fair, though, London's description of the Victoria Home does dovetail nicely with several other sources I uncovered whilst conducting research for my book. Hence I tend to view his Victoria Home observations as reliable. I only wish that he'd provided more depth of detail.

                                All the best.

                                Garry Wroe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X