Why wasn't her uterus taken?

[kensei]

Of course we're dealing with an insane mind, but there's something else that occurs to me. Even if he goes in with some crazy thought of a romantic (heart) or sexual (uterus) connection with the organs, would it really still feel the same to him once he's holding the bloody thing in his hands? I mean, a human heart you've just ripped out of someone's body doesn't look a thing like a valentine. I don't know-- he'd really have to be a special kind of crazy. But then whoever did all that to Mary surely was. Just something to think about.

[Abby Normal]

To me Mary Kelly has always been the key as the evidence and circumstances of her murder seem to point to her knowing her killer. And I think the heart being taken may be indicative of this also. Her killer may have been obsessed with her, wanted a relationship etc. and taking the heart may be the symbolic trophy.

[DVV]

Louis Armstrong

What a wonderful post, Abby.

[lynn cates]

good

Hello Abby. Good.

Now could that fit Fleming, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

If you want to start down the symbolic road, what did cutting the flesh off her thigh signify? What did pulling out her intestines signify? You can't just take one thing out of context and make it significant. I think the Ripper killed Mary and if so, is the taking of a heart so bizarre when other internal organs have been taken from previous victims? Let's face it, there are only so many internal organs in the human body. So if you want to play the symbolism game each organ has to be significant in some way.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Why in the world do you have to look for a personal relationship in Mary's death when you have a killer running around Whitechapel cutting throats and taking internal organs? Wouldn't he be the most logical choice for her killer?

c.d.

[Hunter]

Hello Cris. Do you personally link his cutting out the heart to a romantic conundrum--say, with a boy friend?

Cheers.
LC

No... But who can really say? I speculate "no" because look at all the rest that was done to her. If this was a spurned lover, he had killed before.

[The Good Michael]

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


Mike

[GUT]

G'day Mike

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


Mike

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.

[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.

[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

[lynn cates]

Why?

Hello Cris. Thanks.

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

Not sure why.

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]

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]

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