Jack had to slip up

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam and Paul!

I´m afraid we are not necessarily talking of a connoiseur here; Chikatilo reportedly chewed on a uterus after having cut it out of a woman. Leaving the yuckier parts about that affair aside for now (you are probably aquainted with them), there is no need to choose portability over cannibalism for the sake of uteri being inedible, I think.

Portability presents nothing but an issue of practicality, and would as such not have been an ultimate goal. If he took the parts along with him, he did so for a reason.
What´s your take on the kidney, anyway? Something to use to focus on the memory of the deed? And if so, in what way would it heighten the sensation derived from the possesion of the uterus? Why and how would two organs be more useful to that end? And if he found that "the more the merrier" did apply - then why leave all them freshly cut out innards in Millers Court, and settle for just the heart? Seems strange, does it not?

If he did not take it for the sake of consuming it, that kidney is an annoyance...

The best, Sam, Paul,
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Hi, Fisherman.

We were so near the old portable vs potable joke.

I do not think it's a more the merrier. And I have struggled with the kidney too. Does it relate to Chapman's bladder? We all have our kinks.

Indeed, Chapman's bladder is more problematic for me. With Chapman, JTR seemed to take the birth parts: vagina, navel, womb. Oh, and bladder.

For the kidney, there it is with MJK as the odd man out. Foetus/infant under her head with uterus/breast. Oh, and kidneys.

But I found BlackKat's literature on the Eastern associations of womb and kidney very helpful, because it allowed me to understand the combination of parts that JTR used to prop up Kelly's head. And I'm not going to do the pun in "kidney" that takes us to the same place, but it is to be found on the "Psychoanalytic" thread. Hi, Sam.

[perrymason]

Hi Folks,

To Paul firstly, you are making my argument for me ...the heart was a slip up, an indicator that perhaps this was a spurned/lost love issue, with the recipient of the bad news being unstable. Had Marys killler taken her uterus or entire pelvic region, we would have an "elevated" Jack most likely. IMHO.

Cd, the removal of Kates kidney was not at the expense of at least 3/4 of her uterus as well, it was both. The issue here being continuity in the focus on the pelvic and abdominal region of a woman...a heart has no gender.I never said he wouldnt do more after Kates injuries, new things, I just think repeating every prior act to some degree, then omitting to take the most female organs, is unJacklike.

Nov 9th...if you imagine this killer sitting in near darkness in a small room flailing away, youre incorrect, ..because he piece by piece extracts or removes and then places things about her corpse. Her face is anger related, I agree...Unlike Kates wounds which were spiteful and serious, but hardly virtually erasing her identity...had Kelly been just a little curious why the woman he slept with almost every night was gone for two or three in a row, maybe she would have been id'd quicker...but Mary only exhibits some initial rage, in the attack, and her face..

BlackKat, I dont know where it went, but I do know it wasnt in the room.

Without countering everything, let me just say that if you feel that being a woman wasnt relevant to Jack the Ripper when seeking organs, then a heart makes fine sense. I dont feel it was unimportant, in fact he takes Kates only 3/4 after removing a new objective...why didnt he just take the kidney? But no...he takes even a partial uterus, portions of the womans external vagina from Annie.

Seems clear to me he was intentionally killing women, and taking female related organs primarily. The 2nd and 4th victim both lost uteri. So hows a heart fit into the profile...the mad serial killer vexed by his impotence, or rage at whores or women...Heres the thing.....how can a heart be specifically female?.......how about when it comes from an object of the killers affection, or source of rejection....one who is female.

Now remember we have a lover of hers that will be declared insane in the near future...just like his family genes indicated.

My best regards all.

[perrymason]

Fictional exchange

The 1st week of November 1888, in a local pub....

Mary: " You have to stop coming round Joe, I told you that my Joe will cut off my money if he knows you're about....I told you were through"

Flemming: " 'e's out of your life now Mary, you know Ive always taken care of you...whats 'e ever done but drink your pay away?

Mary: "e's never raised a hand to me in anger Joe Flemming...something I cant say about the likes of you"

Flemming: "You think you can take my money and all my affection and toss it aside for some market hawker?....oh, buts hes so nice to me Flemming mimics....... "That pretty face of yours will get you in more trouble than you ever dreamed of someday Mary Kelly...you mark my words."

Flemming storms out, leaving a few coins on the table for their drinks. Mary sits by herself for a bit...sure she has just put herself in peril with Joe. She starts to think she better find a way to be sure he doesnt jump out at her in the courtyard some night....like having a strong Blotchy Faced man to escort her home when pubs close.

My best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

The kidney is a unisex organ, Mike. The removal of Eddowes' kidney simply does not square with a killer taking "sexual" organs - it squares with one taking whatever he can get away with at the time. The kidney, uterus and bladder were the only real options available to the killer in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square.

Cutting out almost any other abdominal organ than the uterus, bladder and kidney would have required greater "elbow room". In short, the small and large intestines would have to have been cleared out in order for easy removal to take place - which is precisely the situation (and opportunity) that presented itself at Miller's Court.

[c.d.]

I think people are putting way too much significance on the symbolism of various organs but that is my opinion only.

It is also possible that Jack intended to take an organ or organs as a trophy but was spooked and decided it was time to go right then and there. He reaches for an organ and comes up with the heart. Just the luck of the draw.

c.d.

[paul emmett]

To Paul firstly, you are making my argument for me ...the heart was a slip up, an indicator that perhaps this was a spurned/lost love issue, with the recipient of the bad news being unstable. Had Marys killler taken her uterus or entire pelvic region, we would have an "elevated" Jack most likely. IMHO.

Hello, Michael.

I, of course, say you are making my argument for me. Back then all I was arguing was that if MJK's killer was a copycat, then he was a terrible one. I think his not taking the utreus makes my point a done deal.

But since then, this thread has moved on to ask why kidney, why bladder, why navel--none of which are gender specific. What if your own question-- If it is JTR who kills MJK, why does he take her heart??--is just a damn good question, not necessarily an unanswerable one. Certianly one possible answer is that JTR "knows" MJK "better" than all the rest. The heart question seems to me easier than the bladder question. Maybe JTR was more attracted to MJK. Maybe he saw her more as a person than a whore. I don't know. But I do think it's a good question.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Good fictional exchange. Many years ago when I was really hard up for a job I was a waiter in a restaurant in Florida. Not to sound like a snob but I don't think any of the waitresses there were college educated if you get my drift. Well they all had more fricken problems than you can shake a stick at. Mostly involving men...ex husbands who cheated on them, drank too much, didn't pay alimony, shoved them around, left them to raise a kid etc. It just seemed to come with the territory. I think the same thing can be said for Mary and her relationships. I imagine that they were par for the course for women in her circumstances. The moral of the story is that if we see her relationships as the catalyst for what happened to her, then we should expect to see something similar happen to a number of women in the East End.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I think because there are other extenuating circumstances in the case of Mary Kelly, that the organs do indeed perhaps matter cd. Not the least of which is how she was "obtained", and where. Also dont imagine for a minute this was a slash and grab deal...he may well have spent 1/2 hour or more...cutting, placing,...stripping one thigh fully, but only partially the left...cutting, placing...the only real action is the attack and the face slashes, the rest is methodical. As if carefully recreating things hes read about...almost to a T.

Sam, I never suggested a kidney was gender specific, only that he did not leave the 3/4 uterus in favor of his new acquisition. Like he does with both prior organs in Mary.

Paul, I personally think the new venue, probable means of acquisition, the facial slashes, and the removal of her heart speak far more to a known killer than to Jack the Ripper...but he may be both.

And cd...glad you liked the dialogue, but interesting to see how a little personal conversation such as that could have affected events that night, or created them. And yes,...we should look hard at whom among the Canonicals had relationship trauma within the 2 weeks prior to her death,...and lo and behold, the other Canonical who fits that profile well is Liz.....and perhaps Kate even. But Liz is certainly the other most questioned inclusion in the Canonical 5.

My best regards.

[Chava]

By the way, have we ever seriously looked at Blotchy-Face? Because he doesn't sound like a trick. She spent a whole bunch of time getting drunk with him around, and singing her little song. That behaviour does not jibe with the brisk young tart who says 'good morning, I have to find some money' not much more than an hour later, and bustles off stone-cold sober apparently to pick up a man in an astrakhan overcoat.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"The removal of Eddowes' kidney simply does not square with a killer taking "sexual" organs - it squares with one taking whatever he can get away with at the time. The kidney, uterus and bladder were the only real options available to the killer in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square."

And that, of course, has a true ring to it, though I would not mind changing "only real options" for "obvious options". We are not certain of how pressed for time he felt he was, and whether kidney, uterus and bladder was a chosen target or an accepted offer. If I am to venture a guess here, I would say that Sam is probably at least partly right, though.
That aside, when it comes to Paul Emmet´s worries about the bladder, I think it must be remembered that he did not take all of it. The one thing that was left undamaged as he cut away that portion of Chapman, was the uterus. And it was not as if he had made efforts to secure all pelvic organs intact: Phillips assertion that all was performed by a single sweep of the knife implies to me that he focused on the uterus, and not wanting it damaged, he opted for good measure. That still does not mean that he cut out a large part of innards; it was no more than what would fit into a breakfast cup (as witnessed, once again, by Phillips). In fact, it was so small an amount of innards that the Irish Times wrote ”had not the medical examiner been of a thorough and searching character, it might easily have been left unnoticed that there had been any portion of the body taken”.

Eddowes´ kidney, though, was another thing altogether. It was not something that followed from the cut that took her uterus out. It was an organ that could easily have been overlooked, since it is covered by a membrane.
He took it anyway. And it was clearly targetted, something that cannot be said of the bladder parts lost from Chapmans body. In many respects, that cries out for an explanation, whereas anybody can come up with such an explanation for both uterus and heart.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Arsenic Addicted Lipski]

By the way, have we ever seriously looked at Blotchy-Face? Because he doesn't sound like a trick.

Looking at the case a hundred plus years later, any character with a limited dosier of information could make a great candidate for the Ripper and of course any persons that can be placed in the area of the victim cannot be ruled out. Although, since little more information can be extracted from the public archives I think it is more productive to examine scenes and victims for clues about suspects. Many criminalogist and true crime authors have suggested that the killer's first victim may be in a "safe zone" or closest to home.

I believe ,as some do, that his movements on the two kill night say a lot about where he may have lived. The fact the killings happened at night on bank holidays suggest a family or person life to maintain. He is a misogynist that may have a sexually transmitted disease or some other disability. He may be addicted to a substance. He is a Polish Jewish Immigrant.

That's basically my favorite archetype of the Ripper suspect. I would love to hear others!

[Chava]

He is a Polish Jewish Immigrant.

I'm sorry, I must have missed something major. We know this how?

[NOV9]

Looking at the case a hundred plus years later, any character with a limited dosier of information could make a great candidate for the Ripper and of course any persons that can be placed in the area of the victim cannot be ruled out. Although, since little more information can be extracted from the public archives I think it is more productive to examine scenes and victims for clues about suspects. Many criminalogist and true crime authors have suggested that the killer's first victim may be in a "safe zone" or closest to home.

I believe ,as some do, that his movements on the two kill night say a lot about where he may have lived. The fact the killings happened at night on bank holidays suggest a family or person life to maintain. He is a misogynist that may have a sexually transmitted disease or some other disability. He may be addicted to a substance. He is a Polish Jewish Immigrant.

That's basically my favorite archetype of the Ripper suspect. I would love to hear others!

Hi,

I believe you are referring to geographic profiling.
The Buffer zone is his comfort zone. And not too close to his home,
By foot approx. 1/2-mile radius would be safe for him.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

I think that the notion of a key access and closure by the killer is untenable....McCarthy forces open his own door...there was no key, nor an extra one owned by McCarthy.

Why didnt he use the window access? He did know of it. I believe its for this reason...show. To show the people in attendance and the crowd gathering it was the only way to get in. To prove the door was locked. Why the fuss?

Because they entered earlier by using the window, but did not want that known, outside the force. A Medical Man is there by 11:30am...looks in the window, and states later that he saw there was nothing he could do for her...so he just waited until 1:30pm, and the forced entry. Bullocks.

We know there was nothing he could do for her...but there was plenty he could still do...knowing the body would remain in that room until a forensic exam had been completed, and knowing Dorset Street would fill with locals making the guarding officers jobs difficult. They needed to do the site inspection, make notes on Mary, and get her corpse out of there... for crowd control at least. I think those notes started being taken before 1:30pm.

If the killer left via the door, and the latch was "on", to allow him entry earlier, whether he reached in himself, or she left it "on" when she fell asleep....at the very least he must have set the latch "off" himself. If the door was unlocked when he came in for her, he still has to engage the lock himself when leaving.

Now.....when has Jack ever put an obstacle between people finding the body, or the arriving investigators access to it,...and the deceased?

My best regards all.