Intent to eviscerate?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, if he had wanted to take organs, and if he was not disturbed, he could undoubtedly have done so.

And yes, we both think he was disturbed.

It seems you believe - as most people probably do - that he WOULD have taken organs if he had not been disturbed. That is where we differ. I think that his agenda was one where many different elements could be equally significant to him, meaning that I do not think that organ procuring was his ultimate goal, what he always strived for. Keep in mind that he did not carry away any of the many organs, some of them quite small and easily hidden, that he took out of from Kellys body, with the possible exception of the heart. It resembles robbing a bank and leaving the money behind. And if a bankrobber consistently does such a thing, then the reason must be that he did not come to take the money away from the bank, only to rob it.

It is a logic that will certainly be unappealing to most of us, but it is nevertheless the only deduction possible.

This is my personal take on things. I cannot prove it. I therefore agree that it is anybodys guess what would have happened if the killer was not disturbed in Bucks Row.

Just thought this might be worthy of a thread on its own. Do we have sufficient reason to believe that Nichols' killer intended to remove one or more of her organs?

[Fisherman]

Just thought this might be worthy of a thread on its own. Do we have sufficient reason to believe that Nichols' killer intended to remove one or more of her organs?

Yes, of course we do. After all, he took off with Chapmans uterus and Eddowes´ditto plus a left kidney, and he took Kellys heart, by the looks of things.
It therefore goes without saying that we have sufficient reason to surmise that this was his objective in the Nichols deed too.

With respect, Gareth, I think your question is not the one we need to ask. The more pertinent questions are "Can any reason be given for why he may perhaps not have come for the organs? And when he DID cut the organs out, why did he not always take them with himself as he left? Why did he leave Kellys uterus under her head? After all, surely the Chapman and Eddowes cases tell us that he had a flair for uteri? And Kellys uterus would have been small enough to allow for putting it in a pocket and leaving. So why leave it?"

These are the questions that we should look at, in my view. Because they are - once again in my view - very closely knit to the inspiration grounds for what he did.

Now, I did not mean to make any comeback, I was just flummoxed by what Steve said about us agreeing. Now that I shown you the track I have to offer, I will take my leave again. Whether you want to travel along the track I present or not is your decision. It offers an interesting ride at any rate...

[Elamarna]

Just thought this might be worthy of a thread on its own. Do we have sufficient reason to believe that Nichols' killer intended to remove one or more of her organs?

I think the issue is not knowing the killers motivation.

I am of the view he did not target organs but took what he found and what he could carry away. I do not at present feel there is evidence to say he specifically targeted any organ.

It could be that the cutting and opening up of the body was enough for him or maybe not.

That he was preparing to open Nichols up is I think beyond question, and he may have reached that point already when he stopped.

And he would probably have taken organs if not disturbed is a good line of reasoning.
Beyond that I cannot really say.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, of course we do. After all, he took off with Chapmans uterus and Eddowes´ditto plus a left kidney, and he took Kellys heart, by the looks of things.
It therefore goes without saying that we have sufficient reason to surmise that this was his objective in the Nichols deed too.

The presumptions in the above are staggering, but the real truth is that the murder of Polly is eerily similar to only Annies murder, not the litany of victims mentioned above. Based on that an educated guess would be that he likely intended to cut further in Bucks Row...but someone a member here believes killed her, very probably interrupted the actual killer. Its why a backyard venue worked better for him, he was able to accomplish much more without potential passers by.

Their killer can almost certainly be presumed to be one man,... the pattern, victimologies, circumstances, wounds, ..all categories are virtually identical, and have nothing in common with any head, arm or leg removal murders done in private.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the issue is not knowing the killers motivation.

I am of the view he did not target organs but took what he found and what he could carry away. I do not at present feel there is evidence to say he specifically targeted any organ.

It could be that the cutting and opening up of the body was enough for him or maybe not.

That he was preparing to open Nichols up is I think beyond question, and he may have reached that point already when he stopped.

And he would probably have taken organs if not disturbed is a good line of reasoning.
Beyond that I cannot really say.

Steve

Hi Steve
You are right there is no evidence to show that one killer, if there was one solo killer ever targeted organs.

In fact as you know there is a case to suggest that murder and mutilation was the only motive.

If the killers motivation was to take organs then we would have seen evidence of that right throughout the whole series of murders above and beyond the canonical five, yet we see no evidence of organ removal, or any attempts at organ removal other than from Chapman and Eddowes, and the removal of their organs supposedly by their killer is unsafe to rely on.

The more you dig deeper into the facts, and assess and evaluate these facts more closely, the more the old accepted facts become unsafe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk