Why a Kidney?

[JTRSickert]

Hello everyone. I wanted to get everyone's opinion on the speculation of why JTR removed Catherine Eddowes's kidney. Now, obviously, most of us will say it was a trophy he kept to remind him of his crime. While I do not dispute this, I was wondering what significance the kidney could hold for him. If JTR was a serial killer who hated and feared women, then it is understandable why he removed the womb and vaginal areas of his victims. But, why the kidney? The kidney is in a location of the body that is not near the uterus and vaginal area. So, why take that?

Here is my own personal opinion (but I would enjoy listening to some of yours): We know that certain veneral diseases cause urination to be painful. And, a lot has been said that one of the reasons the Ripper murdered prostitutes is he may have contracted VD from his liasions with them. So, if this is the case, it stands to reason he would want to keep the kidney out of spite and revenge for the pain he himself is suffering. His way of thinking being: "These whores have caused me to be in pain when I piss. So, I shall take from them the thing which now causes me much anguish."

let me nknow what you think.

[lynn cates]

kidney

Hello JTR. That's an interesting idea. I wonder if it is significant that those other than Kate kept theirs?

It has been argued (not well I think) that, if any of the C5 were not prostitutes, it was Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[The Grave Maurice]

Sounds reasonable. Either that or he had a recipe that called for fresh kidney with fava beans and a nice Chianti. Wait...no, sorry...wrong guy.

[JTRSickert]

Maurice,

Actually, for the other guy, it was a liver, not kidney. LOL

However, as we know from the Lusk letter, the writer claimed to have eaten the other half. So, of course, we cannot rule out cannabalism (assuming of course the Lusk letter is genuine).

Also, since the killer removed the uterus and vaginal area, it's almost like he was taking the areas that were currently causing his predicament (if he, in fact, did have VD). The womb represents the area where he contracted the illness and the kidney represents the area that is now causing him pain.

[The Good Michael]

Here's what I know: Either he ate the organs or he didn't.

Mike

[Frank]

Cannibalism is one possibility. After finding out that Annie Chapman's bladder isn't useful for this purpose, he wanted to try some other part of a body. (That doesn't have to mean that the Lusk letter is genuine.)

Another possiblity is that Jack simply did not know what he was cutting out; "the uterus? a kidney? never mind, I take it" It could have been the liver quite as well but it was a kidney, and we keep wondering why.

Best regards,
Frank

[Garry Wroe]

Given that several of the crime scenes afforded the killer little if any light, logic would seem to dictate that tactility was the dominant feature of the evisceration process. With a dead or dying victim lying beneath him, the killer probably laid open the abdomen and then groped around inside the visceral cavity. Once he came upon something of interest, it would have been simplicity itself to grip the object with his left hand, leaving his knife-wielding right hand free to slice away the organ. Not only would such a method require nothing in the way of anatomical knowledge, it would provide a fast and efficient method of operation under dark or near-dark conditions.

As for the Ripper’s possible anthropophagy, any number of similar case histories reveal that such killers derive not only a sense of power, but untold sexual gratification from the theft and consumption of victims’ body parts. Such was the frequency with which the Whitechapel Murderer took away internal organs that one may safely conclude that he indeed resorted to cannibalism as an extension of the murder ritual. Whether or not he sent the kidney portion to George Lusk is, of course, an entirely different matter. All things being equal, however, I would consider it probable rather than possible.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[lynn cates]

inconvenient

Hello Garry. It seems to me that, given the location of the kidneys, retrieving one would have been very inconvenient.

So I wonder whether that were the organ ready to hand?

The best.
LC

[Monty]

oooh, the kidney game.

The answer lays with diabetes.

Monty

[Limehouse]

I believe the kidney is, indeed, difficult to locate. Not only that, but it is enclosed in a membrane. However, given the probable darkness of Mitre Sq and the limited time available, it seems possible that the killer either did not know what he was cutting out and found it by chance whilst rummaging around, or he was trying to show how clever he was.

[Mitch Rowe]

Hmm?
Would it be possible for the Ripper to be sending a message that he knew Stride personally?

[Sam Flynn]

I believe the kidney is, indeed, difficult to locate.

It isn't really, Julie. Certain Ripper books might try to argue the contrary, but usually because they have a vested interest in doing so.

Not only that, but it is enclosed in a membrane.

An unbelievably thin membrane, though - I believe we're only talking about a few microns (millionths of a metre) in "thickness" here. The important thing to grasp in respect of the membrane is that its very thinness would make it readily palpable in light or darkness.

Dr Brown's words are significant, in that they only cover one modality, namely vision: "It [the kidney] is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane". Now, with due respect to the good doctor, the quality of being "overlooked" is somewhat redundant when one considers the poor lighting in Mitre Square. But who has to "look", when one can easily "feel"?

[Limehouse]

Thanks for that reply Gareth. It is likely, therefore, that the kidney was located by the killer rummaging around rather than peering into the cavity. I have always felt that the killer had no real purpose in tearing out organs, except for the hell of doing it. I am not convinced that he had any sort of plan for the organs but I rather think he may have enjoyed the press coverage concerning the mayhem he visited on these poor women.

[YankeeSergeant]

Thanks for that reply Gareth. It is likely, therefore, that the kidney was located by the killer rummaging around rather than peering into the cavity. I have always felt that the killer had no real purpose in tearing out organs, except for the hell of doing it. I am not convinced that he had any sort of plan for the organs but I rather think he may have enjoyed the press coverage concerning the mayhem he visited on these poor women.

We know the kidney was removed. We don't really know that he ate the other half as claimed. Part of this debate depends on if we accept the Lusk letter as genuine. Then we have the question if he really ate the kidney. I'm with Limehouse, I think he removed the kidney for the hell of it. Of course this like so much else in the case is speculation. Even with people like jeffrey dahmer we don't know what really compels them to cannibalism so who knows? Kindest regards, Neil

[Wickerman]

...An unbelievably thin membrane, though - I believe we're only talking about a few microns (millionths of a metre) in "thickness" here....

Dr Brown's words are significant, in that they only cover one modality, namely vision: "It [the kidney] is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane"...

Although this is reaching back a tad, it appears to me that Sam was referring to the thin almost see-through skin called "fibrous capsule".
Whereas Dr. Brown was referring to the fatty tissue which encloses the kidney. This is why the kidney is easy to overlook, you are not looking/feeling for a kidney, you are seeing/grasping a lump of misshaped fatty tissue.
Within this fatty lump is the kidney, but between the kidney and the fat is a thin see-through skin-like substance which is called the "fibrous capsule".

http://books.google.ca/books?id=rRtPExr9Hz8C&pg=PA623&lpg=PA623&dq=human+kidney+enclosed+in+fat&source=bl&ots=TOVcPFzFmY&sig=LcoYKlPdoATvnENrdlkiuY39hLc&hl=en&ei=0aFyTYb5FZLTgQfnv8k3&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

See page 623, The Urinary System.

Regards, Jon S.