A theory about some injuries!

[c.d.]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[Varqm]

I am very satisfied with this explanation Robert....the "oh-murder" was exclaimed by Mary after she was woken.. drunk.. and padded to the door to see who knocked, the sound that woke Diddles. When she opened the door a crack, thats when the cry was made, it was exasperation...which was heard by one witness" as if at my door", and a second witness " as if from the courtyard". He was let in without further protest. Which for me makes him either a boyfriend or lover.

We know she was seeing someone aside from Barnett. We dont know who that was....some assume its Flemming. I dont. I think it might be Issacs.

We do not know how loud the cry was and if it could travel through the thin walls (sometimes Prater could hear commotions) and broken window
pane.It was a quiet early morning and the court was small.
The killer was successful in killing his victims standing up,with Eddowes there was no noise (partly something, logically ,he was aiming for).
Why change during Kelly's murder when they were standing up after the door was closed,per Dr. Phillips she was killed lying down.
As I posted before if an intruder how did he knew Kelly was asleep,half-asleep,like Nichols and Chapman 3-4 AM was a normal time to be awake and work/solicit
and if she had somebody with her (client/friend or just people crammed into the room which was not unusual in Spitalfields/poor areas).
He then had to put his hand through the broken pane and open the door,Kelly was a few feet away.Hard for me to believe it was other than Blotchy,
I do not entertain any other suspect in Kelly's case.Blotchy knew Kelly was alone,drunk and sleeping.

[Abby Normal]

Jack did make a lot of "funny" cuts on Kate's face that don't make sense... well, less sense than cutting out her kidney, I guess. I don't generally believe that he opened or closed any of the women's eyes, Abby; you're right, eyes don't seem to be "his thing". It seems that there must have been sufficient light in Mitre Square to see Kate's eyelids were closed, and he knicked both of them. In Kate's case, I think that puts him on her right side, if he's trying to get as much light from the street lamp.

In Mary's case, I'm under the impression that there was some, uh, skill used in removing the flesh and muscle of her leg. Considering what he did to her stomach, lung and face, her leg should have looked like a Christmas goose carved up by an 8 year old. Instead, it seems like he "removed" that section rather adeptly.

The heart, hm... won't lie, sometimes I consider that he cooked and ate it in her apartment.

The heart.
Another clue that they may have known each other.

[Abby Normal]

Imagine a man with a paper, on which the alphabet has been written with a pencil.
He sits down, and starts to erase the letters from the paper, one by one.
When he is done, he has only left the "c" and the "u" untouched on the paper, while all the rest is gone.

Does that mean that c:s and u:s are not his thing? Or does it mean something entirely different?

When the killer let his knife go berserk on all the facial features of Kelly, but miraculously left the eyes intact (which he seemingly did) - did that mean that eyes were not his thing, or something entirely different?

When he nicked the eyelids of Eddowes, but only so deep so as not to harm the eyeballs - did that mean that the eyes were not his thing, or something entirely different?

When we take the utmost care not to harm a specific part of the body, whereas we are ready to inflict mayhem on all the other parts, what does that mean? Where does our interest lie - with the harmed or unharmed parts?

Things like these can be seen from two sides.

Absolutely fish and good point.
I just meant that eyes were not his thing in terms of mutilating them.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Fisherman!

When we think about the police official's words about Mary Kelly's eyes expressing terror, maybe that was Jack's pleasure?

All the best
Jukka

I doubt it, somehow. Most of the canonical victims were killed under poor lighting conditions. As Fisherman says, perhaps the terror in Kelly's eyes was a bonus.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman!

When we think about the police official's words about Mary Kelly's eyes expressing terror, maybe that was Jack's pleasure?

All the best
Jukka

Maybe so. At any rate, she must have been a haunting sight. I do think, however, that such considerations may have been secondary to the killer - a bonus, if you like.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Fisherman!

When we think about the police official's words about Mary Kelly's eyes expressing terror, maybe that was Jack's pleasure?

All the best
Jukka

[Fisherman]

Abby; you're right, eyes don't seem to be "his thing".

Imagine a man with a paper, on which the alphabet has been written with a pencil.
He sits down, and starts to erase the letters from the paper, one by one.
When he is done, he has only left the "c" and the "u" untouched on the paper, while all the rest is gone.

Does that mean that c:s and u:s are not his thing? Or does it mean something entirely different?

When the killer let his knife go berserk on all the facial features of Kelly, but miraculously left the eyes intact (which he seemingly did) - did that mean that eyes were not his thing, or something entirely different?

When he nicked the eyelids of Eddowes, but only so deep so as not to harm the eyeballs - did that mean that the eyes were not his thing, or something entirely different?

When we take the utmost care not to harm a specific part of the body, whereas we are ready to inflict mayhem on all the other parts, what does that mean? Where does our interest lie - with the harmed or unharmed parts?

Things like these can be seen from two sides.