Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Batman]

But he's with me that a person doesn't have to be a doctor or a butcher to get it done, and get it done quickly. In a large part because of removing the block from Chapman. He get's the block, he goes home, he trims out the uterus. And he can see the connections, the ligaments, where it attaches to what, and he has everything he needs to know about how to remove just the uterus right there in his hands. He knew how to find it, he cut out a block, worked on that block, and thats all he needs to get the uterus out of Eddowes.

That suggests having a complete specimen to work with. Hence the medical use.

As to why not the whole reproductive system, who knows? External genitalia i s associated with sex, internal genitalia is associated with child bearing. So maybe he was completely disinterested in a sexual aspect? Maybe he is punishing women for him being born? Who knows. It's there for him if he wants it. He doesn't want it for some reason.

The fact he wants organs as trophies is important in that if the true identity of JtR comes to light, it will make sense why.

In the case of Mary Jane Kelly the whole lot was removed but I don't think he took it with him. I am not even sure if he took the heart of not.

If a connection to the kidney can be cut by accident, it can be cut purposefully. Getting into the membrane is like filleting a fish. So that's not hard. And when you feel a kidney in situ, it feels like there is a membrane over it. Clearly you cannot pick up the kidney, and you can feel where the pocket is, which would be where the membrane starts. Once the membrane was cut, we have no idea what happened. He could have yanked on it and found it to be attached, and cut the attachments. It doesn't matter if they are hidden, if he tries to pull out the kidney, he will know exactly where those attachment are.

There is no evidence he pulled on the kidney this way as according to Dr.Brown it was carefully removed. The parts would have evidenced stretching and tearing if he just smashed and grabbed the kidney that way. The renal artery was cut through rather than fat+renal artery cut through. This suggests that in the dark the membrane/fat was opened up and the artery cut so that the kidney would come out easily.

This isn't rocket science. The fact that a gynecologist does this every day illustrates that finding a uterus is possible through feel. But let me try this a different way. Let's say you are looking at the tops of trees, and you need to isolate one particular tree. So you send your buddy down to shake the tree you want, so you can see it from the top. The foliage you see shaking? That's your tree. The still foliage to your left? Not your tree. Same with a uterus. You manipulate the vagina and cervix in any manner you see fit, poking, shaking, pulling, whatever. The uterus will move. Because they are attached. If you grabbed the trachea, the lungs would shake. Not a ton, these things are strapped in, but they move.

Probing has it uses, but I think all the world of probing isn't a substitute for an actual anatomy lesson. Just look at diagrams of cultures around the world who haven't connected fully with western science. Their interpretation is akin to what they have seen in combat fatalities etc.

Organs have to be removed in a particular way in order to be of use, and these organs weren't removed that way. Maybe the kidney, but the uteruses certainly weren't, and the heart wasn't. And anatomical specimen uterus has to be intact with fallopian tubes and ovaries, and at the very least the cervix has to be there. It should be the entire vaginal canal as well, but a cut above the cervix renders it useless. And the heart has to have at least an inch or two of the aorta, vena cava, pulmonary veins, etc. They also had to be washed and preserved immediately, because if bacteria has a chance to form the whole thing rots within two month.

In 1888 these had no use? From what I remember even Burke and Hare were murdering people for the bodies and where in the business of selling them as well as parts to medical people. I am sure part of a specimen would have been better than none at all.

Brown is right on this one. If the killer wanted them preserved for his own use, maybe. But he wasn't selling them. They were wrong, and frankly while the Ripper is loose who is going to buy a sketchy uterus off a guy?

It is unlikely JtR would part with his trophy. I think he would have no problem displaying it though.

[Trevor Marriott]

Was it open to the public though? Who'd disturb him inside a private home, at that hour?

I thought we were talking about the Chapman murder ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Batman, re Dr. Bond calling Mary "naked" though she had a chemise on: that may be a sign of his Victorian upbringing, especially if he was an older gent. I have read that people might be considered "naked" when wearing their undergarments, and have you seen how much clothing they put on to go swimming in the ocean? Plus using the "bathing machine" to go directly into the sea without crossing the beach. Just a thought.

Got to love them bathing machines!

Maybe yes pcdunn.

[Errata]

That suggests having a complete specimen to work with. Hence the medical use.

No, What I'm saying is he takes an organ block first, because it's easier, it requires no real skill. When he gets it home in real light, he can study it and figure out how to take just the uterus. But it's a trophy. He's not looking for a medical specimen. He just happens to have one because of how he removed everything. If he only wants the uterus he's going to have to trim it up anyway. And that's going to give him the only training he's going to need.

The fact he wants organs as trophies is important in that if the true identity of JtR comes to light, it will make sense why.

Maybe. Personally I would not await a "eureka!" moment. Gein's sexual inexperience makes some of the things he collected make sense, but I don't think anyone has any idea about the lampshades. And then there's the woman suit which makes no logical or practical sense, but kind of goes with his general theme. Dahmer took heads and genitalia, that makes sense, skulls make less sense, feet make no sense. Had he a foot fetish, it would make sense, but then the skulls wouldn't. Collectors are always a bit of a grab bag.

In the case of Mary Jane Kelly the whole lot was removed but I don't think he took it with him. I am not even sure if he took the heart of not.

He left the uterus and the kidneys. The only thing missing was the heart, and I think he took it. Fibrous muscle takes forever to burn, and it would have o have been the first thing he threw in there, and I'm not sure it can get hot enough in a fireplace to burn a heart to ash. I don't know that he kept it. He may have tossed it in a bin on his way home, but I think if it was still in the room they would have found it.

There is no evidence he pulled on the kidney this way as according to Dr.Brown it was carefully removed. The parts would have evidenced stretching and tearing if he just smashed and grabbed the kidney that way. The renal artery was cut through rather than fat+renal artery cut through. This suggests that in the dark the membrane/fat was opened up and the artery cut so that the kidney would come out easily.

We don't know. "Carefully" is another one of those loaded words where it can mean different things. Dos it mean he took it out like surgeon? Does it mean he took it out with minimal damage to surrounding structures? And does that mean he knew anatomy, or does it mean he was really paying attention? And when he points out the renal artery being cut through, does he mean the renal artery only, or does he mean the kidney was not yanked out, which is possible. He doesn't give us the detail we need. When he says "carefully" I hear him say that the membrane was cut, the connections were cut, and he did all this with a minimum of damage to the area. Because remember, Jack cut up the liver something terrible trying to get that kidney out. Which in no way is consistent with a surgical amputation. So we don't know what the scale is on "careful", and he doesn't give us enough specifics to figure it out. So we all have different interpretations of these reports.

Probing has it uses, but I think all the world of probing isn't a substitute for an actual anatomy lesson. Just look at diagrams of cultures around the world who haven't connected fully with western science. Their interpretation is akin to what they have seen in combat fatalities etc.

Well of course it's no substitute. I certainly don't want a gynecologist who has never had an anatomy lesson. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it's sufficient. All we need is sufficient. Can the uterus be identified by probing? Absolutely. Is it best if professionals actually go to med school? Yes please. Can a serial killer get by with almost no anatomical knowledge when trying to cut out a uterus? Yes. The uterus is one of those organs that can be easily identified. If he wanted spleens he would be screwed. But a uterus is easy enough. It's workable. It's sufficient.

In 1888 these had no use? From what I remember even Burke and Hare were murdering people for the bodies and where in the business of selling them as well as parts to medical people. I am sure part of a specimen would have been better than none at all.

Burke And Hare were 60 years prior to the Ripper. I think we can agree that markets change in 60 years. Any doctor who wanted a specimen could show up at a morgue and grab one. And get it correctly. So they aren't buying anymore. Cutting up dead people for research was legal. And the mortality rate was still pretty high. At this point in history the rich and the middle class who wanted organs in a jar could buy them easily (though with questionable legality) from reputable sources. What they could not find enough of, what they could not shell out money fast enough for were freaks and anomalies. Two headed babies, a bifurcated uterus, a six chambered heart. And in fact in 1888 people were doing brisk business in faking freaks. I don't see Jack having a market. I mean, you might see if there was some sort of underground folk medicine thing going on, maybe then. But if that were true, if he was selling them, wouldn't he take as many organs as he could stuff in his pockets?

It is unlikely JtR would part with his trophy. I think he would have no problem displaying it though.

Maybe. I don't know why, but I tend towards thinking he eventually ate them, but nothing backs that up. I think it's that he's taking organs popular for eating when they come from a sheep. Not the uterus, but people eat kidneys clearly, hearts are classic poor people meat. Maybe he didn't like liver? I don't know. I don't see him keeping them pickled in a jar. Aside from the fact that a lower class person having organs in a jar is enough of an anomaly that it would immediately be suspicious.

[Batman]

The thing about London women being disemboweled and eaten by a crazed Jew though does border on the sort of anti-Semitic portrayals of Jews in medieval Christianity. One can't help feel that this would be a fantasy becoming reality while not impossible just might be nothing less than standard racism in late 19th century London.

[Ausgirl]

The thing about London women being disemboweled and eaten by a crazed Jew though does border on the sort of anti-Semitic portrayals of Jews in medieval Christianity. One can't help feel that this would be a fantasy becoming reality while not impossible just might be nothing less than standard racism in late 19th century London.

Dear gods, insanity/sociopathy (take your pick) has no ethnicity.

I do think he ate bits though. A number of mutilators have done so.

[Errata]

The thing about London women being disemboweled and eaten by a crazed Jew though does border on the sort of anti-Semitic portrayals of Jews in medieval Christianity. One can't help feel that this would be a fantasy becoming reality while not impossible just might be nothing less than standard racism in late 19th century London.

It's certainly possible, though the whole blood libel rumor had essentially passed at this point. I mean, you get kooky Christian sects who believe it to this day, but the common man was mostly done with that particular slight. Even Hitler didn't argue it, and if anyone was going to pick up on rumors of cannibalistic Jews, he'd be the guy.

But god bless you Brits. There was some insane racism and a nation full of unpleasant stereotypes about Jews, but it had more to do with the numbers than the religion. There is a letter between two aristocratic ladies discussing The Earl of Rosebery's wife. And the writer of the letter talked about the Countess, how she seemed nice enough, if insufferably dull and says "And a Jewess! as you know! My doctor is a Jew, and a more estimable man I have not met! Yet I do wonder Merry why there should be so MANY of them?" Storming the beaches in rags is a far better charge than that of eating Christian babies.

My grandfather had this framed in his office. It's funny because it's the sort of friendly/insulting thing every minority deals with, and it's funny because in reality there are so few of us. But the Countess of Rosebery was Hannah Rothschild. The richest woman in Britain. By a lot. So you'd think a woman of that immense wealth would command a certain level of attention, even if she had been horrible instead of merely dull. But the marriage was actually rather admirable and sweet. And she was a dominant force in England, who was so subtle that she was completely ignored. My grandfather was a big admirer since he was in college. And his grandfather worked in her house as a glazier. The single generation of my particular branch of the family that lived in England. And during the time of the Ripper.

[Jeff Leahy]

My grandfather had this framed in his office. It's funny because it's the sort of friendly/insulting thing every minority deals with, and it's funny because in reality there are so few of us. But the Countess of Rosebery was Hannah Rothschild. The richest woman in Britain. By a lot. So you'd think a woman of that immense wealth would command a certain level of attention, even if she had been horrible instead of merely dull. But the marriage was actually rather admirable and sweet. And she was a dominant force in England, who was so subtle that she was completely ignored. My grandfather was a big admirer since he was in college. And his grandfather worked in her house as a glazier. The single generation of my particular branch of the family that lived in England. And during the time of the Ripper.

Bizarrely enough I looked into a possible connection between Hannah Rothchilde and the Earl of Crawford.

Hannah Rothchilde opened a woman's refuge in the East end at the time of the murders. And later died of TB around autumn 1891 approx the time that Kosminski was refused entry into the work house.

I couldn't substantiate whether Hannah Rothchilde spent much time in the Eastend, but the Rothechildes were Ashenazi jews and help finance and build many new synagogs for finical help for people fleeing the Russian programs.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Much though I hate Russian programs of all types, I was of course trying to communicate PROGROMS

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Batman,

Concerning your thread here titled Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptance of Coincidences:

The thing about London women being disemboweled and eaten by a crazed Jew though does border on the sort of anti-Semitic portrayals of Jews in medieval Christianity. One can't help feel that this would be a fantasy becoming reality while not impossible just might be nothing less than standard racism in late 19th century London.

Why didn't you just say this in the first place?

I love it. Suck people into some big-arse discussion and then lower the boom on them - on no, its just all white racism anyway.



Roy

[Errata]

Bizarrely enough I looked into a possible connection between Hannah Rothchilde and the Earl of Crawford.

Hannah Rothchilde opened a woman's refuge in the East end at the time of the murders. And later died of TB around autumn 1891 approx the time that Kosminski was refused entry into the work house.

I couldn't substantiate whether Hannah Rothchilde spent much time in the Eastend, but the Rothechildes were Ashenazi jews and help finance and build many new synagogs for finical help for people fleeing the Russian programs.

Yours Jeff

Royal Society Crawford? Or the WWI veteran?

Hannah Primrose would have been at the dedication of the Club For Jewish Working Girls, and would have visited a couple times a year, at least in the beginning. Of course I have no idea when it opened, but likely before her marriage in 1878. The Rothschild fortune was only hers to control for a short time.

[Jeff Leahy]

Royal Society Crawford? Or the WWI veteran?

Hannah Primrose would have been at the dedication of the Club For Jewish Working Girls, and would have visited a couple times a year, at least in the beginning. Of course I have no idea when it opened, but likely before her marriage in 1878. The Rothschild fortune was only hers to control for a short time.

Yes Old Red beard himself not his son. His wives cousin seems to have had connections to the Rothchildes, and the Earl, according to his diary stayed with them in 1898.

From what I can gather about Hannah's husband Roseberry, he rather liked the money.

Rothchilde donated money to help with Russian Jews effected by the progroms as did Montagu. And Rothechilde and Montegu were involved in a number of East end projects, building etc… Having a maniac with a knife running about couldn't have been good for the rental market but it probably did the news paper business some good.

Yours Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In the most detailed case, a Jew was tailed for several months, KNEW he was being followed, and was eventually institutionalized. Putting 2 and 2 together, this suspect was most likely Kosminski.

I take it that you are referring to the alleged suspect whom Cox claimed to have followed.

I would be interested to see your answers to the following questions:

(1) Cox's suspect was a shopkeeper, not an unemployed hairdresser.

Where is the evidence that Aaron Kosminski ever owned a shop?

(2) Cox's suspect had spent time in an asylum in Surrey.

Where is the evidence that Aaron Kosminski was ever in an asylum in Surrey?

(3) Kosminski was permanently incarcerated in an asylum.

Where is the evidence that the same happened to Cox's suspect?

(4) Cox's suspect had black curly hair, which does not match the description of either Lawende's or Schwartz's suspect.

So, how could Lawende or Schwartz have identified him?

(5) Since Cox's suspect was of Jewish appearance, how could he have been Anderson's, who according to Anderson himself was not of Jewish appearance?

(6) The surveillance which Cox claimed to have conducted commenced in or shortly after February 1891 and continued for months.

How could Kosminski have been tailed for several months in 1891, when he was incarcerated in early February, 1891?

(7) Since Cox implies that the last murder was that of Frances Coles, is it not relevant that Kosminski has an unimpeachable alibi for that murder?