Tweet
If we're adhering to the canonical five, then it seems curious to me that Jack decided to leave the uterus behind this time. If we assume that circumstances didn't allow him to perform his little hysterectomy on Nichols & Stride, then he had no such problem with MJK, and yet this time he decided to remove her heart and leave her uterus behind? Why?
-
-
Practicalities? He could reasonably not take all the innards with him, since they would make up a voluminous package, so maybe he simply settled for the heart this time over - an organ that he had not extracted before, perhaps owing to time issues.Originally posted by Harry D View Post
Mind you, there is some discussion whether he DID take the heart or not.
The suggestion that he was into organs knit to the reproductive organs only sort of got whacked in Mitre Square.
All the best,
Fisherman -
Whatever the reason, I don't think any significance can be attached to it.
c.d.Comment
-
... apart, that would be, the significance of knowing that he was not determined to procure the uterus from every victim. He could have in Kelly´s case, but he didn´t. Instead he prepared a grisly cushion for her, placing the uterus, the kidneys and a breast under her head.Originally posted by c.d. View Post
When it comes to the question whether this killer sought to shock people or not, it´s hard to not consider the Kelly killing as a prime example.
The other victims are much along the same lines; Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes ... ghastly sights that had Saunders, Davis and Watkins reeling with shock and horror.
Not so Nichols, though - serenely stretched out as if she slept, and with her clothing pulled down so as to hide her abdominal wounds from sight.
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 06-15-2014, 07:59 AM.Comment
-
Hi Harry,I think the taking away of the organs in these murders tells us a lot about our killer don't you.Originally posted by Harry D View PostThree things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truthComment
-
Hello pinkmoon,Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
I'm not sure that it does. Hence my topic!
I've been wondering if the Philadelphia doctor has any bearing on the case? I can't even remember where I read about that now, and Google isn't pulling up any results. It seems more than coincidental that some quack puts out a wanted ad for uteri, and then our killer starts performing hysterectomies. I'm not necessarily suggesting that was Jack's motivation for the murders, that he was in it for the money. Otherwise he wouldn't have left MJK's uterus behind when he annihilated her. It's all well and good saying that 'Jack fancied the heart this time' but WHY did he? Why stop at Eddowes? That's what we must try to understand.Comment
-
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.Originally posted by Harry D View PostHello pinkmoon,
I'm not sure that it does. Hence my topic!
I've been wondering if the Philadelphia doctor has any bearing on the case? I can't even remember where I read about that now, and Google isn't pulling up any results. It seems more than coincidental that some quack puts out a wanted ad for uteri, and then our killer starts performing hysterectomies. I'm not necessarily suggesting that was Jack's motivation for the murders, that he was in it for the money. Otherwise he wouldn't have left MJK's uterus behind when he annihilated her. It's all well and good saying that 'Jack fancied the heart this time' but WHY did he? Why stop at Eddowes? That's what we must try to understand.Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truthComment
-
Hello Harry, all,
personally I never bought the uterus-harvesting-for-money thing, it's a non-starter for me.
However, I agree with pinkmoon that the removal (not necessarily the taking away) of various organs must have been an important part of the killer's ritual. Even though the risk of getting caught red-handed rose with every second he spent with his victims, he still took the time to rip them up and take something out of them.
One can only guess why he took the heart in Mary Kelly's case and not a kidney or the uterus. Maybe the heart looked like a more valuable trophy to him than other organs and he had more time on his hands than in previous murders.
Best wishes,
BorisLast edited by bolo; 06-15-2014, 03:01 PM.~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~Comment
-
He already had Uteri and Kidney [well he had one at one time] so now for something different.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
The heart might have been a much coveted trophy for the Ripper, but opening the rib cage to get at it was a bit of a time consuming process that he'd never felt safe doing until he had MJK procured indoors. The heart is something he would be able to locate and identify even without much anatomical knowledge. When he did take a uterus, how likely is it that he actually knew what it was? Though he may well have gotten a sexual thrill just from probing within his victim's bodies and taking his trophies, I kind of question the thought of a sexual connotation in his actual choice of organs. A uterus is associated with more than just sex, but with childbirth, and I doubt he wanted to dwell on his victims as potential mothers. (Unless his murders had something to do with issues he had with his own mother of course, which is a whole other subject.)Comment
-
real questions
Hello Harry.
"It's all well and good saying that 'Jack fancied the heart this time' but WHY did he? Why stop at Eddowes? That's what we must try to understand."
Careful. You're asking REAL questions. Beware lest you discover a real answer.
(Looks like you have the same opinion about hand waving as I do.)
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Kelly's uterus was removed; it just wasn't taken away by her killer. It was placed under her head. That still represents some significance of this organ to her killer.
Her heart was not removed through the ribcage, but was accessed through the diaphragm.
Real questions are fine. Coherent, real answers would be nice too. And in that case ask her killer - which we really can't.Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________
When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Comment
-
Hi Harry,Originally posted by Harry D View Post
That's a very good question. Another way to look at this could be -
The organ-theft hypothesis - The theory that the organs were wanted by a mad doctor type, an idea that had become popular after the Chapman murder and was at its peak of popularity immediately before the double event (it was mentioned by Baxter at the Chapman inquest) - By the time of the Kelly murder, the killer would know (if he had read the newspapers) that this idea was completely dead in the water.
So, from the killers perspective, - why bother taking the organs from the Kelly murder scene ? - Who's that going to fool now - Why not give the investigators something new to think about ?Comment
-
Most assume the heart was taken but this is a contentious point. To me, that the primary organs of his interest were not taken suggests that, for whatever reason, nothing was taken. Perhaps he was known to MJK and had reason to believe that he might fall under suspicion. Or, unlike the other murders, he had more time to engage in his fetishes at the crime scene and didn't need to take things with him for later engagement.Comment
-
heart of the matter
Hello Cris. Do you personally link his cutting out the heart to a romantic conundrum--say, with a boy friend?
Cheers.
LCComment
Comment