Why a Kidney?

[FrankO]

It's an idea of mine - no more than that - that he was looking for the heart already in Eddowes' case. The left kidney is located not that far below the heart. So, he groped around higher up on the left side in the torso and stumbled upon the left kidney.

All the best,
Frank

[Errata]

Personally, I think he operated completely by feel and not by sight (not that he didn't look, just that it wasn't how he was judging his cuts). I think that's why the uterus was cut out in such and unusual way in both women. I don't think he had any special medical or anatomical knowledge, which would also necessitate working by feel rather than by sight. I think he knew what kidneys looked like. I think he knew where they were essentially. I think there were probably very few organs he was so familiar with to be able to recognize them by feel that he went with what he knew. And clearly he had some problems or I imagine he would not have cut up the liver. And I think he may well have know that since kidneys were food, certain assumptions would be made about why he took a kidney. Whether he fulfilled those expectations I have no idea.

The kidney is not actually that easy to find. It is covered by a very thin membrane, but when someone is one their back, the kidney flattens to be even with the chest wall. There is only a very slight rise over the organ. Essentially you would feel for the squishy part on the back to find it. And it's not super squishy.

I have a hard time believing that a man would associate a kidney with painful urination. Even if he knew perfectly well what role the kidney played in disease and elimination etc. he is still gonna go with the part that hurts. I mean, I know that when I get stabbing pains in my leg that it is because of my back, but I still say "My leg hurts" and I still gt annoyed my my stupid leg.

[Wickerman]

Personally, I think he operated completely by feel and not by sight (not that he didn't look, just that it wasn't how he was judging his cuts). I think that's why the uterus was cut out in such and unusual way in both women. I don't think he had any special medical or anatomical knowledge, which would also necessitate working by feel rather than by sight. I think he knew what kidneys looked like. I think he knew where they were essentially. I think there were probably very few organs he was so familiar with to be able to recognize them by feel that he went with what he knew. And clearly he had some problems or I imagine he would not have cut up the liver. And I think he may well have know that since kidneys were food, certain assumptions would be made about why he took a kidney. Whether he fulfilled those expectations I have no idea.

But you are describing someone who has superior anatomical knowledge, superior to the common layperson.
So you agree with Dr. Gordon-Brown's testimony:

"The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about."

"He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them."

The liver covers the right kidney if I recall, so perhaps he was in the process of locating her right kidney when he was interrupted? Which would imply the facial lacerations were done before the organ removal, might not sit well with some theorists.

[Errata]

But you are describing someone who has superior anatomical knowledge, superior to the common layperson.
So you agree with Dr. Gordon-Brown's testimony:

"The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about."

"He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them."

The liver covers the right kidney if I recall, so perhaps he was in the process of locating her right kidney when he was interrupted? Which would imply the facial lacerations were done before the organ removal, might not sit well with some theorists.

I'm not sure it has to do with superior medical knowledge as much as a superior ability to draw parallels. Kidneys were food, and their placement in cows and sheep is similar to their placement in humans. Cow and sheep carcasses were on display for all to see. I think he knew it from that. I think he felt up along the spine.

The liver actually stretches across the body. The majority of it is on the left side, but does reach the left side.

And for what it's worth I think the facial lacerations were absolutely first. People tend not to cut up a face after an attack. Its a pretty personal thing to do, and I would bet money he had to it in order to proceed with the rest of it. And I think it threw off his priorities.

[gidgey]

This was a very interesting read.

The only thing I have to say is that if he was cutting out her Kidney because of VD and it hurt to pee...wouldnt he cut out the bladder?!

I mean when it comes to urinating the first organ I would associate it with would be the bladder....but thats me.

Just a thought.
xx

[Wickerman]

It's an idea of mine - no more than that - that he was looking for the heart already in Eddowes' case. The left kidney is located not that far below the heart. So, he groped around higher up on the left side in the torso and stumbled upon the left kidney.
All the best,
Frank

Ok Frank thanks, but if you read the autopsy:

"The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage."

I think, the start of the cut was at the enciform cartilage which is below the sternum. In most cases, isn't the sternum either opposite the heart, or slightly below the heart?
The picture I get is that to reach the heart the killer would need to reach up in a north-easterly direction into the ribcage, whereas the left kidney is to the south-east if you get my drift?
Enciform Cartilage = Xiphoid Process

http://www.infovisual.info/03/025_en.html

[FrankO]

Thanks for showing me where the enciform cartilage is situated (and what it is in the first place), Jon!

I sure get your drift. The heart lies more to the north and to the centre of the body than the left kidney. But what if the Ripper wasn’t all that interested in and well-informed about the upper area of the body?

On the other hand, it’s just an idea of mine - my preferred view is that the Ripper took the left kidney just because it felt good to him at the time.

All the best,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up


RD

[Michael W Richards]

Dr Brown: "He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them."...."Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes."

Dr Sequeira: "I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill."

Dr Phillips description of the man that cut up Annie was such that the authorities suggested that...."It is among possessors of anatomical knowledge the police must look for their man." They did indeed search medical schools and teaching hospitals for possible suspects.....ONLY In September. For Phillips, on Annies murder, there seems to be no question of higher level skills than a mere butcher or slaughter man. We have contradictory opinions on whether these same "skilled" hands were used for Kates murder. He assisted Sequiera and Brown on the Post Mortem and later said he did not see the same knife characteristics that he saw with Annies wounds, and was not convinced of any appreciable skill or knowledge shown by Kates killer/cutter.

For myself, Annie Chapman is the Ripper murder that is the template for this JtR fella. Its the first of its kind that Fall, and there is precision there....in Phillips opinion only partly revealed due to the haste of the killer. Surely killing outdoors in a yard of a home with 17 people in it, and with lots of overlooking windows that could see into that yard.... then staying with the victim to perform his field extractions... might have caused him to move with some haste.

Oddly, in Mitre Square, some of the things he did would take up precious seconds...like tracing around the navel, the cutting tearing of the apron section, the marking of Kates face and Nose. In Hanbury "there were no meaningless cuts" as per Phillips. All the cutting was to facilitate the objective...which Phillips believed was the obtaining of the very organ excised and taken.

Its not always the obvious differences, sometimes its that AND the subtle differences, and based on those and the professional ambiguity on Kates killers talents, including Bonds opinion later that he saw no appreciable skill or talent in any of the Canonical murders...which of course includes Kates,...I dont believe there is compelling physical evidence to associate all these murders with one killer.