4 or more unreasonable?

[Abby Normal]

Increased police activity and public scrutinty after the double event made him skitish? Maybe his work schedule changed? Or perhaps there was some sort of failed attack that we don't know about? Which probably frustrated him even more and may explain why he went with a hooker with a place (Maybe that's what AM asked Kelly- if she had a place. She says "yes". "You'll be all right..").

Agree with this.
As the murders continued it was probably becoming increasingly harder for the killer to get his victims where he wanted them. Example -Stride.
He was also seen for the first time well on the night of the double event and by several witnesses, so maybe he thought to lay low for a while.
I think with MK, he also got very lucky to find a victim with her own place.

[DVV]

Hi Abby

I'm really not sure it was a matter of luck.
MJK wasn't the only girl with her own place, I suppose.
Between the double event and the 9th November, the killer had more than enough time to search for somebody he could mutilate indoors.
My guess is that they knew each other. and that MJK's fate was sealed when Barnett left her.

Cheers

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo DVV.

Would you be so kind as to explain your scenario for who killed her?

[DVV]

The House of the Sleeping Beauties

Hi Dig,

It's no secret that I believe Fleming was the Ripper. Or let's say he's imo the most likely candidate. The fact that Mary was probably sleeping when she was attacked indicates that the man wasn't an ordinary client.

And I don't think Blotchy had recently read Kawabata.

Cheers

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo DVV.

Thank you. Would you be so kind once again to reason it out for me? Flemming being the Ripper and what have you.

[DVV]

I'd be off-topic.
You can check the Fleming threads.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Actually...

I'd be off-topic.
You can check the Fleming threads.

I started this thread and stated nothing was off topic. Especially since it is supportive of 4 or more not being unreasonable. So, feel no restriction. If you would be so kind. Many thanks in advance.

[Mayerling]

Increased police activity and public scrutinty after the double event made him skitish? Maybe his work schedule changed? Or perhaps there was some sort of failed attack that we don't know about? Which probably frustrated him even more and may explain why he went with a hooker with a place (Maybe that's what AM asked Kelly- if she had a place. She says "yes". "You'll be all right..").

Hi C.F.,

Actually any logical explanation is acceptable. But I have had a suspicion for over twenty years that there might be an explanation that would 1) put the Ripper out of commission for one month, and 2) make him really angry enough to seek out his next victim for a spectacular destruction.

It depends on that business about the kidney.

If you accept that it was Annie's kidney (a big if), she had "Bright's disease", a kidney centered disease that was fatal to people who had it in the 19th Century (victims of it included President Chester Arthur, Secretary of State James G. Blaine, and - in 1912 - Vice President James S. Sherman). If it was Anne's kidney, and the Ripper was telling the truth about eating it he was eating a diseased kidney. This might have led to some kind of really serious illness, which took the Ripper into a hospital (where he had to be careful about explaining what he had recently ate). Stuck and possibly near death for one month, due to a kidney from a prostitute, he would have not been in any overly friendly feelings towards any other prostiture he ran across. So when he is roving around on November 8, 1888, we see the results in the shambles of Mary Kelly at Miller's Court.

Once I asked my old family doctor if eating a diseased organ like that would cause serious illness. The doctor laughed and sort of dismissed the idea. Still, I wonder if it would have.

Jeff

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Mayerling.

Catherine. Yes, that is something I had not yet thought of. Surprisingly enough.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Not to mention

If he had been eating uteri and genitalia.

[RivkahChaya]

Hi C.F.,

Actually any logical explanation is acceptable. But I have had a suspicion for over twenty years that there might be an explanation that would 1) put the Ripper out of commission for one month, and 2) make him really angry enough to seek out his next victim for a spectacular destruction.

It depends on that business about the kidney.

If you accept that it was Annie's kidney (a big if), she had "Bright's disease", a kidney centered disease that was fatal to people who had it in the 19th Century (victims of it included President Chester Arthur, Secretary of State James G. Blaine, and - in 1912 - Vice President James S. Sherman). If it was Anne's kidney, and the Ripper was telling the truth about eating it he was eating a diseased kidney. This might have led to some kind of really serious illness, which took the Ripper into a hospital (where he had to be careful about explaining what he had recently ate). Stuck and possibly near death for one month, due to a kidney from a prostitute, he would have not been in any overly friendly feelings towards any other prostiture he ran across. So when he is roving around on November 8, 1888, we see the results in the shambles of Mary Kelly at Miller's Court.

Once I asked my old family doctor if eating a diseased organ like that would cause serious illness. The doctor laughed and sort of dismissed the idea. Still, I wonder if it would have.

Jeff

You mean Kate's kidney?

The term "Bright's disease" isn't used anymore, because it simply means chronic nephritis characterized by serum protein in the urine. When the kidneys congested or edemic, they don't work well, and the person will suffer from pain, high blood pressure, and sometimes symptoms of hypovitaminosis D, which if it goes on long enough can lead to a loss of bone calcium.

Some people may have a series of acute attacks, rather than what appears to be a chronic condition.

At the time, alcoholism was thought to be a cause, but now it is known not to be. A lot of alcoholics have hypovitaminosis D, loss of bone density, and edema, and untreated UTIs could turn into kidney infections without antibiotics, so there were probably a lot of people at the time walking around with low-level kidney infections, and if they happened to die of some other cause, on autopsy, their kidneys, or one of them, would look inflamed.

Also, a common cause of chronic kidney dysfunction before antibiotics were discovered, was strep throat. Because it's so easy to treat now, people forget how dangerous strep is. It's the cause of scarlet fever, which killed a lot of children, and left others blind. More who survived ended up with heart problems, or kidney problems. In rare cases where children get strep, but don't have outward symptoms, they still might end up with heart or kidney damage, or a very odd neurologic condition called PANDAS.

The answer to your question is that no, you won't get something from eating a Bright's kidney. However, one reason predators don't generally eat other predators, and not just humans, but all species avoid eating their own kind, is that any infection or parasite the original food source had, the consumer can get, since they have the same susceptibilities.

[Mayerling]

You mean Kate's kidney?

The term "Bright's disease" isn't used anymore, because it simply means chronic nephritis characterized by serum protein in the urine. When the kidneys congested or edemic, they don't work well, and the person will suffer from pain, high blood pressure, and sometimes symptoms of hypovitaminosis D, which if it goes on long enough can lead to a loss of bone calcium.

Some people may have a series of acute attacks, rather than what appears to be a chronic condition.

At the time, alcoholism was thought to be a cause, but now it is known not to be. A lot of alcoholics have hypovitaminosis D, loss of bone density, and edema, and untreated UTIs could turn into kidney infections without antibiotics, so there were probably a lot of people at the time walking around with low-level kidney infections, and if they happened to die of some other cause, on autopsy, their kidneys, or one of them, would look inflamed.

Also, a common cause of chronic kidney dysfunction before antibiotics were discovered, was strep throat. Because it's so easy to treat now, people forget how dangerous strep is. It's the cause of scarlet fever, which killed a lot of children, and left others blind. More who survived ended up with heart problems, or kidney problems. In rare cases where children get strep, but don't have outward symptoms, they still might end up with heart or kidney damage, or a very odd neurologic condition called PANDAS.

The answer to your question is that no, you won't get something from eating a Bright's kidney. However, one reason predators don't generally eat other predators, and not just humans, but all species avoid eating their own kind, is that any infection or parasite the original food source had, the consumer can get, since they have the same susceptibilities.

Hi Rivkah and Digalittle,

First you are right - I keep confusing Annie Chapman as he one who lost the kidney - it was Catherine Eddowes. Sorry.

Secondly, I still wonder if I may have stumbled onto what actually happened. Imagine for a minute the killer rushed by family and friends to the hospital, and the staff are perplexed by the obvious case of food poisoning. They start asking questions like , "What have you been eating?" How is the killer to respond to this. He can't say, "Well, I was nibbling on a tainted kidney I just picked up...." because the papers are full of reports of the half a kidney sent in the mail with a note stating "I ate the other half...it was very nice". If he did say that our killer/ now a sick patient would find several police officers grilling him and hounding from then on. So he has to shrug his shoulders and say things like, "Beats me!" As the digested half of the kidney would be reduced by his gastric juices into unrecognizeable digested meat, any examination of the food would not get anywhere (given the forensics of 1888 London hospitals). As for "Jack" he'd be sick as a dog, and near death for at least a week, and then as he is slowly recovering he would recall his near death experience is due to the poor health of a whore, and he would proceed to mull over that by himself in the hospital and at home while he recovered. And when he resumes his trecks to Whitechapel, he certainly would want to even the score according to his rules.

By the way, does anyone know what Druitt's schedule was like in October 1888? Or any of the other leading suspects?

Jeff

[RivkahChaya]

The fact that the kidney was from someone with Bright's disease would not make him sick. The fact that it was a human kidney might, or the fact that it may have been tainted with fecal matter, or badly preserved, no matter what the Lusk letter said, are all better reasons for the kidney making him sick. If Eddowes was coincidentally a healthy carrier of typhoid, like Typhoid Mary Mallon, and JtR failed to rinse the kidney, or cook it well, then he could have gotten sick as a dog. But that has nothing to do with Bright's disease.

However, he could have coincidentally gotten sick from something else at the time he ate the kidney (assuming for argument that this did happen), and this could have led to something called the Garcia Effect, or conditioned taste aversion. It's instant classical conditioning, which happens to a person who experiences a nausea and vomiting episode, and developed a taste aversion for whatever was eaten within about 12 hours before, whether it had anything to do with the vomiting or not. The less common a food is in a person's diet, the more likely an aversion. If you drink coffee two or three times a day, every day, but you eat pecan pie only a couple of times a year, and you develop the pukes a fewn hours after coffee and pecan pie, you'll develop the aversion to pecan pie. The cause may have been viral, or it may have been the coffee, but pecan pie is what you can't stand the sight of.

So if JtR got sick from the kidney, or just around the time of it, it might have put him off his whole murdering behavior.

Anthony Burgess thought it would work.

[Mayerling]

The fact that the kidney was from someone with Bright's disease would not make him sick. The fact that it was a human kidney might, or the fact that it may have been tainted with fecal matter, or badly preserved, no matter what the Lusk letter said, are all better reasons for the kidney making him sick. If Eddowes was coincidentally a healthy carrier of typhoid, like Typhoid Mary Mallon, and JtR failed to rinse the kidney, or cook it well, then he could have gotten sick as a dog. But that has nothing to do with Bright's disease.

However, he could have coincidentally gotten sick from something else at the time he ate the kidney (assuming for argument that this did happen), and this could have led to something called the Garcia Effect, or conditioned taste aversion. It's instant classical conditioning, which happens to a person who experiences a nausea and vomiting episode, and developed a taste aversion for whatever was eaten within about 12 hours before, whether it had anything to do with the vomiting or not. The less common a food is in a person's diet, the more likely an aversion. If you drink coffee two or three times a day, every day, but you eat pecan pie only a couple of times a year, and you develop the pukes a fewn hours after coffee and pecan pie, you'll develop the aversion to pecan pie. The cause may have been viral, or it may have been the coffee, but pecan pie is what you can't stand the sight of.

So if JtR got sick from the kidney, or just around the time of it, it might have put him off his whole murdering behavior.

Anthony Burgess thought it would work.

Thanks for explaining the more likely causes of an illness from that kidney. Why would Anthony Burgess have thought it would work? Did he use such a device in one of his novels?

Jeff

[martin wilson]

I like the King of Elthorne road for Polly and Annie,probably Martha, he is the only suspect who makes what happened at the double event not only comprehensible,but inevitable.
Mary Kelly is the enigma,my guess is she always will be.