To Womb It May Concern

Pragmatically speaking Sam,.... all we can use to deduce what organs if any the killer sought to obtain during the course of the murders, or as being the catalyst for the killings, are what organs he took with him in full or partial form.

There are no matchs. Each organ donor gave something new as the "de jour" choice of the killer seemed to change.

But some organs were taken in a manner that was consistent with a killer having knowledge how to do so efficiently...the fact that none are truly excised using surgical standards or efficiencies shouldnt overshadow that fact....the environmental conditions and the performing of the acts themselves were stress inducing.

My point is that using conjecture offered by the men that examined Polly Nichols when asserting Annies murderers potential overall objectives you do find that its possible that the first 2 women were the only women where the uterus was sought specifically.

In Lizs case that would be high speculation...if true in Kates case then he botched that uterus extraction, something that Annies killer wouldnt likely have done,...and in Marys case, he actually cuts it free and places it under her head with a breast.

The core reason that makes killers kill stays constant, unless they need to just shut up people in addition...everything else can and does change often.

Best regards all.

[Monty]

Maybe Trevor should get an expert to read through your posts for him.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

At least my original theory does have more crediblity than your cut and slash theory

For the last time, Trevor, I do not have a "cut and slash theory". I quoted from someone else's post who used the term "slashing around" in the context of the Ripper murders (not that that's too wide of the mark).

As far as the Kelly murder is concerned I would ask why the killer did not remove other organs then ?

Short of the brain and thyroid gland, I'd have thought that there wasn't much left to remove.

To many theorists in the world of Jack The Ripper !!!!!!!!!!!

True, and far too few pragmatists.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why indeed, a good question, the answers are un ending however if i sat and wrote a long list it would only be based on un corroborated theories which i dont subscribe to.

At least my original theory does have more crediblity than your cut and slash theory and mine is also backed up by corrobortive evidence,

As far as the Kelly murder is concerned I would ask why the killer did not remove other organs then ?

To many theorists in the world of Jack The Ripper !!!!!!!!!!!

[Sam Flynn]

Well what with the cut and slash from Sam and now another take on that i wonder on those theories why the killer didnt take away the whole abdomen and its contents in a Sainsburys carrier bag would have been easier !!!!!!!!!!!.

Now, that's interesting, Trevor, in terms of the alternative view that the organ(s) were removed "off-site" by someone other than the killer. If they had been, (a) why did the eviscerator leave varying degrees of damage and "stumpage" behind?; (b) why didn't he stick to just the uterus and "perfect" that?; (c) why was only one kidney taken from Eddowes, when he could easily have removed both?; and (d) why, in general, weren't more organs taken away?

[Trevor Marriott]

Well what with the cut and slash from Sam and now another take on that i wonder on those theories why the killer didnt take away the whole abdomen and its contents in a Sainsburys carrier bag would have been easier !!!!!!!!!!!.

[Fisherman]

Right you are, Sir! Though, strictly speaking, I was referring to the fact that if there was blood left behind, belonging to both killer and victim, that would have gone undetected.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Crude conditions, pressed time limits and very little light would have been quite enough to shove a knife into a body, rip it up, feel for any bits and pieces that may have appealed to him and then slice them out, leaving a badly messed up body behind.

Indeed so, Fish. Well put.

Nobody could account for the blood on the premises

Ooh, now I don't know about that.

[Fisherman]

Mind you, Sam, it sometimes goes very wrong too ...!

The bottom line, though, is that we need to realize that we do not have to pose any unrealistic demands here; it is not as if our boy would have failed if he got a cut in an inch further to the left than he intended, or if he happened to cut things off that he in all honesty would have been better off leaving intact. He actually did precisely these things on numerous occasions, but since there was never any intention to stitch the "patients" back together, such things did not matter very much.
Crude conditions, pressed time limits and very little light would have been quite enough to shove a knife into a body, rip it up, feel for any bits and pieces that may have appealed to him and then slice them out, leaving a badly messed up body behind.
And who´s to say he did not cut himself in the process once or twice? Nobody could account for the blood on the premises - it was just presumed that it all belonged to the victims.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Are you saying he got lucky with Eddowes and with your cut and slash theory

"Cut" theory, Trevor. As I made clear earlier, the "slashing about" was a quote from somebody else's post.

Hmmmmmmmmm and in almost total darkness.

"Almost" being the operative word. Besides, people do all sorts of things in near-darkness, with organs somewhat less well-defined (and sometimes smaller) than the kidney. It's amazing what one can achieve by touch alone.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you saying he got lucky with Eddowes and with your cut and slash theory managed to avoid any damage to the bladder. Hmmmmmmmmm and in almost total darkness.

You cannot cut and slash in any way shape or form and remove a kidney by that method. Also impossible using a six inch bladed knife. (proven)

Sam I am sorry to say it just didnt happen. Accept it move on !!!!!!

[Sam Flynn]

then again, he had absolutely no time to waste in Chapman's case.

The same was true of the Eddowes murder - and the result was the same: intestines shoeved out of the way, followed by crude disembowelment and evisceration, but at least in Eddowes' case he succeeded in leaving the bladder intact!

The idea that there was more "skill" exhibited in the Chapman murder compared to the rest is simply not borne out by the evidence.

[Jon Guy]

Absolutely, Hellrider.

It is easily missed but Dr Phillips uses the phrase "in consequence of haste" a couple of times whilst giving his evidence.

[Hellrider]

then again, he had absolutely no time to waste in Chapman's case and had to get right down to "business" (sorry if that seems tasteless).

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, it isnt what the Lancet said thats the crux...its how the data was interpreted and summarized by the physicians attending the victims.

...which detail we don't have, apart from the Eddowes and Kelly case, because the records are missing. From such details as do survive, however, I find it touching (actually, laughable) that anyone still has faith in Bagster Phillips' - alleged - view of the "neatness" of the Ripper's work on Annie Chapman. She was foully mutilated, have no doubt about it - her side was scooped open in three slabs of flesh, and her womb was certainly crudely removed, taking out a chunk of the bladder and cutting the colon in the process. Messy, messy stuff.