Internal organ removing SK

[DarkPassenger]

While not technically a serial killer (he only murdered two women), Robert Napper removed a portion of uterus from one of his victims.

The FBI definition of a serial killer is two victims or more. Napper is indeed a serial killer. Actually I though he killed three; a woman and her young daughter, and Rachel Nickell?

[Abby Normal]

Abby- I'm not sure if it was a specific part he took, most of what I've read just says "sexual organs". He often took hearts, lungs, eyes, tongues and noses. There were at least two victims he disemboweled and took everything.
He did target women and children of both sexes. With boys he would remove their genitals to make them more feminine- at least that's the theory, not sure if that was ever confirmed. Off hand I don't remember if he took those with him, I assume he did.

Thanks Shaggy
I didn't know all that. but sounds similar to the ripper-at least closest to any other serial killer to the ripper.

Previously, bill Suff and Dahmer I think were closest, but seems maybe Chikitilo is.

[Shaggyrand]

Took them how? Did he bring a bag? This is a guy who forgot to bring a knife once and used his teeth, but he remembered to bring something to pack the innards in?

This is why this guy scares me. All over the place, no predictability.

One of the victims where he took all the internal organs, he didn't take the eyes which he had done with all the others up to that point. Later there were others with their eyes intact, with evidence of them being blindfolded, so sometimes he went out very well prepared. Chikatilo thought images could be taken off eyes in his early days, eventually he stopped believing that (as I recall right around the time of his first arrest) and stopped taking eyes or blindfolding.
He admitted to carefully stalking some of his victims for lengths of time to learn their every habitual movement, planning with exacting detail and preparation. Others were just victims of impulse, where he'd use sticks and his teeth. 38 murders he described with great detail, demonstrated his methods for many of those on a mannequin with perfect recall. He admitted to enjoying the calm he felt from biting off and swallowing nipples and testicles.
Yeah, absolutely terrifying.

[Errata]

There were at least two victims he disemboweled and took everything.

Took them how? Did he bring a bag? This is a guy who forgot to bring a knife once and used his teeth, but he remembered to bring something to pack the innards in?

This is why this guy scares me. All over the place, no predictability.

[Shaggyrand]

Thanks Shaggy and Errata

Shaggy
do you know what specific internal organs he ate and what other internal organs he kept/took away?

I knew he mutilated the corpses and cut into them , but I didn't know he was cannablizing or taking away other internal organs.

didn't he also target both men and women and children of both sexes?

Abby- I'm not sure if it was a specific part he took, most of what I've read just says "sexual organs". He often took hearts, lungs, eyes, tongues and noses. There were at least two victims he disemboweled and took everything.
He did target women and children of both sexes. With boys he would remove their genitals to make them more feminine- at least that's the theory, not sure if that was ever confirmed. Off hand I don't remember if he took those with him, I assume he did.

[Abby Normal]

Chikatilo kept the organs. He would eat the female sexual organs and just keep the rest around for a while. For a the time authorities thought they were being sold or some cult rituals but that might have had more to do with not wanting to admit there was a serial killer on the loose.

Thanks Shaggy and Errata

Shaggy
do you know what specific internal organs he ate and what other internal organs he kept/took away?

I knew he mutilated the corpses and cut into them , but I didn't know he was cannablizing or taking away other internal organs.

didn't he also target both men and women and children of both sexes?

[Shaggyrand]

Chikatilo did, but I don't offhand know what he did with them. I think they were left at the scene. But I wouldn't compare him to the Ripper. Teeth were used at one point, and that makes it a whole other thing.

Chikatilo kept the organs. He would eat the female sexual organs and just keep the rest around for a while. For a the time authorities thought they were being sold or some cult rituals but that might have had more to do with not wanting to admit there was a serial killer on the loose.

[Errata]

Hi Errata
Thanks.
Do you know of any serial killer that removed and took internal organs like the heart, kidney or uterus? removal that needed a body to be cut open and dissected?

Chikatilo did, but I don't offhand know what he did with them. I think they were left at the scene. But I wouldn't compare him to the Ripper. Teeth were used at one point, and that makes it a whole other thing.

Dahmer did, at least once. It was not his preferred part to keep, but apparently he wanted to at least that one time.

It's a little more common in South America for some reason, there are a couple of guys who at least once took an organ for one purpose or another. I'm not as familiar with serial killers from other countries, but I know there are at least instances. Fiho? Filho? Brazil maybe? He did in a revenge scenario.

Single killers have taken organs, I don't think most were in any danger of being serials, but a couple may have simply been arrested their first time out. There was a local case not long ago of a man cutting the heart out of his ex wife, very symbolic.

But if I were to guess, I would spitball that Jack was more like the Eyeball Killer or Robert Hansen. Neither of whom took organs, but it would not have been out of character for them to do so in certain contexts. But thats me guessing.

[packers stem]

Hello Packer.

"Ah but has anyone done it in total darkness on a time limit I wonder?"

No. Certainly NOT in 1888. And that includes the "JTR" killings.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
Have to agree to disagree on that one.The circumvented navel is evidence of the initial cuts being carried out by one with surgical skill, on the spot.
The mortuary idea is a cop out for me,just a way to convince yourself that jtr had no anatomical skill which has been a matter for discussion from day one
Or are you suggesting that no organs were removed and the physicians were 'economical' with the truth?

[Abby Normal]

To return to the topic, though your point on David Lynch casting is spot on, without knowing what he did with the organs (though many of us suspect he ate them or preserved them) we don't know why he took them.

Taking eyes has special significance. It has it's profile. It could be the same impulse that drives someone to take eyes. People who take eyes attach a special significance to the eyes. It's cheesy to say they are the windows of the soul, but to an enucleator, they kind of are. They represent the person they killed in a special way. A uterus can serve the same function. It can be seen as the soul of the woman, the thing that makes her who she is. In which case, other serial killers who take out organs might not be the best match. Those who take eyes might be a better analog.

Or if these murders are motivated by punishment, the removal of the organs may be how he is punishing them. He doesn't want them to have a uterus. But that doesn't mean he especially wants it either. He might be taking it away as a trophy, but he might be taking it away because punishing her means taking it away. Leaving it next to her might be leaving it still in her possession in his eyes. And he might throw it in the trash when he gets home, because that's his punishment scenario. She can't have it, but he doesn't value it either. There might be an analog with Kemper there. Tearing out his mother's voice box and putting it in the garbage disposal. But Kemper is otherwise a bad analog. Most of his murders were for a different reason. Reasons and methods that don't line up with the Ripper.

It's hard to say who is the best analog, at least with as little information as we have.

Hi Errata
Thanks.
Do you know of any serial killer that removed and took internal organs like the heart, kidney or uterus? removal that needed a body to be cut open and dissected?

[Errata]

To return to the topic, though your point on David Lynch casting is spot on, without knowing what he did with the organs (though many of us suspect he ate them or preserved them) we don't know why he took them.

Taking eyes has special significance. It has it's profile. It could be the same impulse that drives someone to take eyes. People who take eyes attach a special significance to the eyes. It's cheesy to say they are the windows of the soul, but to an enucleator, they kind of are. They represent the person they killed in a special way. A uterus can serve the same function. It can be seen as the soul of the woman, the thing that makes her who she is. In which case, other serial killers who take out organs might not be the best match. Those who take eyes might be a better analog.

Or if these murders are motivated by punishment, the removal of the organs may be how he is punishing them. He doesn't want them to have a uterus. But that doesn't mean he especially wants it either. He might be taking it away as a trophy, but he might be taking it away because punishing her means taking it away. Leaving it next to her might be leaving it still in her possession in his eyes. And he might throw it in the trash when he gets home, because that's his punishment scenario. She can't have it, but he doesn't value it either. There might be an analog with Kemper there. Tearing out his mother's voice box and putting it in the garbage disposal. But Kemper is otherwise a bad analog. Most of his murders were for a different reason. Reasons and methods that don't line up with the Ripper.

It's hard to say who is the best analog, at least with as little information as we have.

[RivkahChaya]

I particularly like the episode with the kid from Dawson's Creek cuddling a severed leg. There was a weird crash in my head with that.

I liked the one where Laura Palmer's father was trying to amputate a leg from one person, and graft them onto another person. Boy, once you've done David Lynch, you never get to play normal again. I think he was also the UnSub on a season 1 or 2 episode. Or maybe he was just the main suspect, who then didn't do it, but he was "creepy priest" (those guys never learn-- it's axiomatically not the first person they suspect) from casting central.

Actually, David Lynch was very fond of severed body parts. Practically every scene from his movies of shows has either a severed part, or a person missing a limb, even if it's just a mounted deer head lying on a conference table. That guy is like a serial killer who has never actually killed anyone.

My husband hates Criminal Minds because it's so cheesy, and the science is so out there, but that's why I love it. It's like Gilligan's Island-- really very campy when you get right down to it.

[/hijack]

[Errata]

Jeffrey Dahmer had a fridge full of body parts, and a couple of skulls, from what I remember of the news articles of the time. He also ate at least one muscle.

Of course, if you watch Criminal Minds, every other week, there's a serial killer who does this.

I particularly like the episode with the kid from Dawson's Creek cuddling a severed leg. There was a weird crash in my head with that.

[RivkahChaya]

Jeffrey Dahmer had a fridge full of body parts, and a couple of skulls, from what I remember of the news articles of the time. He also ate at least one muscle.

Of course, if you watch Criminal Minds, every other week, there's a serial killer who does this.

[Errata]

I think in a weird way that cutting out the organs is the significant part. Taking the organ or leaving it (given that we don't know what he did with it) could be an incidental choice, could be significant, could be the point of the whole exercise. But it's the cutting it out part that we know for sure is important. He might not have really wanted the organs, he might have just really wanted them not to have them for whatever reason. I don't think the comparisons should be limited to only those who took the organs away. There is a lot to learned from comparing them to those who left the organs behind as well.