Why wasn't her uterus taken?

[Bridewell]

Hi Harry,the removal of the organs tell us that our killer has at the very least a basic understanding of human anatomy.The removal was very important to our killer it actually increased his chances of capture now is he going to take the organs home with him for the people he lives with to discover his secret no he's not so I would say he lived alone.

Perhaps he had a dog to feed? The organs weren't visually identifiable as of human origin. Offal is offal and it wasn't in short supply in an area which housed numerous abattoirs and butcher's shops.

[bolo]

Hello Fisherman,

Hmm, Boris. Nichols? Shock value? Nah - she was lying gently stretched out on the pavement, her abdominal wounds carefully hidden from sight.
Her killer did not want to shock with that deed, apparently. It was not until she arrived at the morgue and Spratling had a closer look that it was realized what she had been subjected to.
In that respect she totally differs from Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

I beg to differ here. The press echo after Polly's death was immense and the inquest report must have shocked quite a few people. It was a murder that departed from the usual stabbing, throat slicing, strangling and bludgeoning with blunt instruments the East End police (and the East End inhabitants) were used to.

I'm quite sure that her abdominal wounds were not hidden by design. The killer was still learning what he could do and what gave him the biggest buzz, hence the increase in brutality starting with Annie. Liz wasn't disembowelled, I'm having difficulties adding her to the list of JTR's victims anyway. Seems like a personal thing/"domestic" to me.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Hello all,

the murders of Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary have one thing in common: They were shocking displays of horrible mutilations and it does not seem too far-fetched to me to say that this shock value played a quite important role for the killer.
Best wishes,

Boris

Hmm, Boris. Nichols? Shock value? Nah - she was lying gently stretched out on the pavement, her abdominal wounds carefully hidden from sight.
Her killer did not want to shock with that deed, apparently. It was not until she arrived at the morgue and Spratling had a closer look that it was realized what she had been subjected to.
In that respect she totally differs from Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

The best,
Fisherman

[bolo]

Hello all,

the murders of Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary have one thing in common: They were shocking displays of horrible mutilations and it does not seem too far-fetched to me to say that this shock value played a quite important role for the killer. Maybe he thought that he could not top the Eddowes murder anymore by accosting a random East End prostitute and letting her lead him to a secluded spot because these spots became rarer by the minute, thanks to the efforts of the police and various amateurs who went on the beat on their own (Vigilance Committee, etc.).

So after Kathy (and a month's hiatus), it probably dawned on him that an indoor killing would solve two problems at one go, it would be somewhat safer (depending on the location) and give him ample time to do what ever he wants with the victim.

Killing indoors was an option for the murderer right from the start but his familiarity with the streets and dark alleys of Whitechapel probably made him confident enough to get away with killing in the open. Maybe he also was reluctant at first to do it indoors because he rated it as too risky.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Harry D]

Hello again, Lynn.

Hello Harry. Thanks.

1. "We're dealing with a violent psychopath here."

2. "His bloodlust needed to be sated but at the same time still had to work within his means."

3. "Jack was an opportunistic killer, so that would certainly make sense."

Is this not all speculation?

1. Can this truly be disputed?

2. Most serial killers have an urge to kill that rarely stops of its own accord. It is somewhat speculative that Jack couldn't have killed more prostitutes indoors, which is why I raised the question in my last post.

3. I believe the nature of Jack's killings were opportunistic in nature. I don't believe there was a great deal of planning behind them, with the possible exception of MJK.

In which case, Liz is ruled out.
LC

Not unless he was disrupted before he could finish the deed?

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Harry. Thanks.

1. "We're dealing with a violent psychopath here."

2. "His bloodlust needed to be sated but at the same time still had to work within his means."

3. "Jack was an opportunistic killer, so that would certainly make sense."

Is this not all speculation?

"It's also arguable that the violence escalated as Jack became more 'invested' in his work."

In which case, Liz is ruled out.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Hello Harry. Thanks.

If we wished to dismantle, and if he sought a better environment, why do do so from the beginning?

Cheers.
LC

That's a good question, Lynn.

Did many whores in Whitechapel conduct their business indoors? I thought the majority of them found it easier to take clients for a quickie in an alleyway. We're dealing with a violent psychopath here. His bloodlust needed to be sated but at the same time still had to work within his means. Perhaps MJK was the first chance he had to work undisturbed? Jack was an opportunistic killer, so that would certainly make sense.

It's also arguable that the violence escalated as Jack became more 'invested' in his work. We can't necessarily surmise that when he originally set out on his little killing spree that he wanted to completely mutilate someone in the manner of MJK.

[lynn cates]

environment

Hello Harry. Thanks.

If we wished to dismantle, and if he sought a better environment, why do do so from the beginning?

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

I presume you mean from the front? What intrigues me is that it seems to have involved a level of cutting skill notably absent in the rest of this hack and mangle job.

Hello Lynn,

Could that not be explained by circumstance? The killer had MJK all to himself in a relatively secure location. He wasn't fumbling around in the darkness of a back-alley, where someone could come around the corner at any moment.

[lynn cates]

just saying

Hello Mike.

"So if we can't say, then why is everyone saying?"

Precisely. And that goes for ALL the case.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

kidney

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I suppose the heart would be MORE significant if it were removed last.

"Also, with Eddowes, it isn't the fact he ALSO removed a kidney, but HOW he removed the kidney."

I presume you mean from the front? What intrigues me is that it seems to have involved a level of cutting skill notably absent in the rest of this hack and mangle job.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Why?

Hello Mike. Thanks.

"We can't answer this question because the killer himself couldn't answer why he did exactly what he did."

And we know this because . . . ?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Why?

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"If this was a spurned lover, he had killed before."

Not sure why.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

While we can't say why the killer acted the way they did, we cannot say with any certainty that he dd not know what he was after.

For all we know he was a mad Dr Frankenstein looking for parts to make his perfect woman and to him that may well have seemed perfectly normal.

So if we can't say, then why is everyone saying? Jilted lovers, organ harvesters, all sort of silly since we can't say.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Hello Abby. Good.

Now could that fit Fleming, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

Abby's point is not new, a killer taking away her heart might suggest 'the spurned lover'. It might, if nothing else was done to her.

He had removed the liver, the uterus, both kidneys, the spleen, both breasts, and large slices of flesh from the lower abdomen & thighs, and ALSO, the heart.
So, its not "only", but "also", the heart. Which tends to diminish any perceived importance of one organ over the other.

To my mind, if there is any detail of significance associated with the removal of the heart, it is not that he removed it, but HOW he removed it.
[Note: he cut through the intercostal muscles, why? - to see where the heart was located?]
Finally though, the fact(?) he took it away with him, does suggest some significance. But, maybe nothing more important than the previous uterus & kidney he also took away.

Also, with Eddowes, it isn't the fact he ALSO removed a kidney, but HOW he removed the kidney.

If there is no significance in the method, then there is no significance of any kind.