Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A theory about some injuries!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Hello Abby,

    As Sam has stated so well before the heart of romantic poetry and songs and heart shaped lockets is a far cry from the actual real thing stinking and bloody. Attributing a romantic connection to it in this instance seem rather far fetched to me.

    c.d.
    Maybe, but never less
    the heart has always been connected to all things romantic from the start.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #77
      Well it seems to me that if we assign some symbolism to the heart that we would also need to determine what slicing the flesh off of her thigh was supposed to indicate. Why just pick one thing?

      c.d.
      Last edited by c.d.; 11-27-2017, 05:14 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by c.d. View Post
        Well it seems to me that if we assign some symbolism to the heart that we would also need to determine what slicing the flesh off of her thigh was supposed to indicate. Why just pick one thing?

        c.d.
        The heart was always an organ carrying a lot of symbolic implications. Cannibal tribes in the Pacific have traditioinally eaten the hearts of their conquered enemies in order to come into possession of the courage and strenght of the fallen one.

        I don´t think we can exclude that the killer of Kelly may for example have eaten her heart to gain an everlasting control of her, to make her his own, if you will. Gory, I know, but these kinds of killers are rare in way too many ways.

        If this was the case, then he may simply have destroyed the rest of the body in order to deny any other person access to it.

        Obliterating the body and devouring the heart; that could have been the deal for him.

        Not that I think it was, mind you - but I think the suggestion is a totally viable one nevertheless.

        Comment


        • #79
          Aside from the "romantic" association, heart is eminently edible, of course. Perhaps threre was an element of cannibalism that crept in, starting with the Eddowes kidney.. Against that, the killer had every opportunity to take Kelly's kidneys (plural), but chose not to.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            Aside from the "romantic" association, heart is eminently edible, of course. Perhaps threre was an element of cannibalism that crept in, starting with the Eddowes kidney.. Against that, the killer had every opportunity to take Kelly's kidneys (plural), but chose not to.
            He took them out - but left them in the room, yes. Which means that he went through all of the difficulties involved for a cannibal who wanted to feast on kidneys, including locating the organs and excising them - and then he stopped short of eating them, instead leaving them in the room as he left.

            Now, even if we assume that he was full after having eaten the heart, why would he not take the kidneys along with himself as he left - they are smallish and we know that he had done so in Mitre Square - and why would he take them out in the first place if he didn´t intend to eat them?

            On that note, why did he take the uterus from Chapman, if it was not for eating? Uteri are not good food, they are supposedly very tough eating. And if he found that out in the Chapman case, then why take Eddowes´ uterus?

            Much as I do not exclude the possibility that he did eat an organ or two, I tend to think he did not.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              He took them out - but left them in the room, yes. Which means that he went through all of the difficulties involved for a cannibal who wanted to feast on kidneys, including locating the organs and excising them - and then he stopped short of eating them, instead leaving them in the room as he left.

              Now, even if we assume that he was full after having eaten the heart, why would he not take the kidneys along with himself as he left - they are smallish and we know that he had done so in Mitre Square - and why would he take them out in the first place if he didn´t intend to eat them?

              On that note, why did he take the uterus from Chapman, if it was not for eating? Uteri are not good food, they are supposedly very tough eating. And if he found that out in the Chapman case, then why take Eddowes´ uterus?

              Much as I do not exclude the possibility that he did eat an organ or two, I tend to think he did not.
              Hi fish
              Good post. I think the organs he took had special meaning for him. And I’m at about 50/50 on the canniblism.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • #82
                The heart, despite all of its romantic symbolism, is still an internal organ just like the uterus and kidneys. It seems to me that if you want to assign some meaning beyond that that you would also have to do it for any organ that was taken. Why simply focus on the heart to the exclusion of the other organs?

                c.d.

                Comment

                Working...
                X