To Womb It May Concern

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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 !!!!!!!!!!!.

[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]

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]

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.

[Monty]

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

Monty

[perrymason]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Personally, I see no reason to suppose that he didn't simply take what he could, according to circumstance and opportunity. To that extent, every "trophy" murder in the Whitechapel series is consistent.

But some organs were taken in a manner that was consistent with a killer having knowledge how to do so efficiently...

I fail to see how effecting a crude hysterectomy, after opening a cavity equivalent (in human terms) to a meteor crater, can be seen as "efficient" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
That mat be crude in your eyes but the level of expertise in removing those type of organs was not as it is today so this has to be taken into account. The doctors stated "Some anatomical knowledge" they didnt state as to what level those statements refferred to.

You also have to bear in mind that the organs of Eddowes and Chapman were removed in different ways which as i said before suggests that two different persons were responsible for the removal of the organs..

That in itself must raise a serious doubt about the killer/s removing the organs at the scene. Put that with other facts which would have made it almost impossible for those organs to have been removed by the killers at the time.

And if took what he could as you suggest surely the heart would have been an obvious first choice not something as complicated and difficult to reach like the kidney

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott writes:

"You also have to bear in mind that the organs of Eddowes and Chapman were removed in different ways which as i said before suggests that two different persons were responsible for the removal of the organs.."

...unless it suggests something else - that the Ripper was not schooled enough in anatomy to be consistent in his work.

The best,
Fisherman

[Gman992]

Ever think that Jack was "working his way up" in his dissections. He starts out small, some mutilation, then it progresses to cutting out the intestines, then the kidney(s), until the "full-on" dissection of Mary Kelly? Just a thought. Granted he really didn't have the time--hence the double event--to do a full on until he tricked or trapped Mary Kelly off of the streets into her room. Prostitutes didn't like to be really "alone" with their tricks lest something bad happens to them.

[The Good Michael]

GMAN,

Of course some sort of progression has always been the argument with the murders. Leaving Stride out of the occasion as a one-off or as slashus interruptus, one can certainly see it that way. As for me, everything seems experimental with just the taking of something being at the very least a secondary goal. The argument for a progression is very valid, however and has been used even by contemporaries.

Cheers,

Mike