How many victims?

hi manhattan and welcome
barnett could still have been the ripper though correct?

Thanks for the welcome. No, I don't believe Barnett was the Ripper. That being said, I do think he killed Kelly; who else would have locked the door? He either had the key or used the broken window method (that only he & Kelly knew about). Kelly sure didn't lock it, no one else knew of it, and Barnett could come & go as he liked. Yes, Barnett did match descriptions of JTR, but 1/4 of the men living in Whitechapel could as well, I'm sure.
Barnett's & Kelly's relationship is interesting though. I'm interested in how she got to the East End in the first place. It's a theory I'm working on.

[Abby Normal]

Trevor; Tabram wasn't mutilated. JTR was interrupted while attempting to mutilate Polly Nichlols and Alice McKenzie. JTR (IMO) did not kill Stride and Francis Coles was murdered by her "boy friend". Mary Jane Kelly was, in all probability, slaughtered by Joseph Barnett in a jealous rage, the thigh fat taken from her (along with her heart) used to create a blaze in the fire grate. No body parts (save for Eddowes's liver) having been taken away by JTR. The only thing JTR could have taken was the money agreed upon before an "arrangement" was made with the prostitutes he eventually killed. He wanted his money back. Hence to torn pockets in the dead women's clothing.

hi manhattan and welcome
barnett could still have been the ripper though correct?

[Scott Nelson]

The Ripper mutilated; he didn't behead or dismember. His victims were Caucasian female prostitutes. He didn't stage his victims, he just left them where he killed them. The Ripper killed over a 10-week period. Other serial killers killed over a much longer period.

So say, 6 victims.

Trevor; Tabram wasn't mutilated. JTR was interrupted while attempting to mutilate Polly Nichlols and Alice McKenzie. JTR (IMO) did not kill Stride and Francis Coles was murdered by her "boy friend". Mary Jane Kelly was, in all probability, slaughtered by Joseph Barnett in a jealous rage, the thigh fat taken from her (along with her heart) used to create a blaze in the fire grate. No body parts (save for Eddowes's liver) having been taken away by JTR. The only thing JTR could have taken was the money agreed upon before an "arrangement" was made with the prostitutes he eventually killed. He wanted his money back. Hence to torn pockets in the dead women's clothing.

[Michael W Richards]

For many years now researchers having trying to firmly establish exactly how many women were murdered by this lone killer who became known as JTR and the MO used by the killer. I have set out below the differing MO`s seen in the various murders which I believe are very relevant in determining the killers MO

Murder and Mutilation
Martha Tabram- Murder extreme mutilations
Polly Nichols-Murder minor mutilations
Alice McKenzie-Murder. Minor mutilations
Murder. Mutilation and alleged organ removals
Annie Chapman- extreme mutilations
Catherine Eddowes – extreme mutilations
Mary Kelly-extreme mutilations
( I am personally satisfied that there is sufficient reliable evidence to show that no organs were taken away by the killer from the Kelly crime scene)
Murder-No mutilations
Elizabeth Stride
Frances Coles

The point of this exercise is to show the marked differences in the murders which perhaps indicate more than one killer, or simply one killer who simply murdered and mutilated and did not remove the organs from some of the victims. We know that virtually all the victims were killed in the dead of night in the early hours. So why do we see examples of extreme mutilations in some victims, and minor mutilations in other victims, and almost none in others, all killed around the same times, and yet only two who are alleged to have had organs removed.

It is said that the killer removed organs and took them away in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, but we see no examples of this occurring with any of the other victims, or any attempts at this, and I have to ask why, if it was the same killer surely if he had time in Mitre Square he would have had time to remove organs with the other victims or at least made some attempt at other crime scenes

So we are left with unanswered questions

Were all the victims killed by one killer or more than one?
If the answer is one killer, then we have to ask why didn’t that killer attempt to remove, or remove any organs from any of the other victims.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The most simple answer to your question Trevor.....(by the by your list does not include the Torsos, ..which had a precedent 10 years prior), is that different people have different motivations for killing. Annies killer for example, by virtue of the physical evidence and the man who autopsied her, was motivated by a desire to acquire the organ that he took complete. Does Kates evidence offer such a clear example? Well, no...it was never suggested by any medical examiner nor indicated by the wounds made that her killer specifically sought her kidney...the organ he took in completed form.

My point is that even within a small but very similar sampling of all these unsolved murders, there still may be varying motives.

The one in my view that can bring some sensibility to the JtR theorizers is the Stride case, because we can imagine many and various motives for simply committing a murder. And we can see possible foundations for some of those present in the clubs reputation and their later demonstration of lack of respect for laws and policemen. But with Jacky boy...you only have a goal that is a reflection of the killers madness. The motive in Jacks murders isnt flexible, fluctuating or sensible...its fixed, repetitive and insane.

[Varqm]

Below posted before,would a person only used in cutting animals or slaughterer do the below?

I have been reading some of Prosectors's posts and it's interesting.Prosector had experience "I have operated on the abdomen many
hundreds of times".
All quoted text from Prosector.

It seems JTR nedded to know how to a) severe the intestines from their mesenteric attachments (Chapman,Eddowes),not to "cause the
abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content,lift the small intestines out of the abdomen so he could have a clear field"
in
(b) removing the uterus (Chapman,Eddowes),
c) "deliberately removed a section of the descending colon in order to get direct access
to the left kidney" (Eddowes),
d) Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (Eddowes),"done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in
the sigmoid and rectum", "from oozing back into the abdominal cavity",
e) possibly the choosing of the left kidney instead of the right
(Eddowes), researching why the left kidney not the right,it's mostly used today for kidney transplant because the left renal vein is
longer,easier to cut and sew back in.

But in the Victorian era they did have private and public institutions providing autopsy/post-mortem classes.They also had life-like figurines with the entrails as separate parts.There was also apprenticeship.I think Dr. Brown served as an apprentice to his father (1856-63).He got his apothecary livery membership,by servitude.

[JeffHamm]

What they said and what the reality is that they were wrong, and their inconsistent changeable comments show that. How would someone used to cutting up animals have the knowledge and expertise to be able to locate and remove organs from a human being. There is far to much empahsis placed on some of these opinions from the doctors, whicn have now been disproved by modern day medical experts.

There were slaughter houses located in the East End but they mainly slaughtered cattle and sheep, very pigs were slaughtered because the East End was predominantly Jewish who dont eat pork.

The only thing the cut and slash applies to is the murder and mutilation!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Except, if you believe their opinions are wrong, why emphasize Dr. Brown's estimate for time? And I would suggest modern day killers that we know about who did not even have formal training of cutting up animals, have done as much (i.e. Richard Chase), so I don't think the contemporary medical ideas were wrong in their assessment (either some, or possibly no, experience with cutting up animals are valid opinions). Obviously, this is another point of difference between us that explains how we draw different conclusions.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I'm not sure what we disagree on? Dr. Brown indicates anatomical knowledge and skill was shown, and later in his testimony he confirms such knowledge and skill could be obtained by one used to cutting up animals. Dr. Sequeria, however, testifies he does not think there was even the knowledge/skill of one used to cutting up animals. They differed in their opinions (as is often the case with opinions). All I was saying was that anatomical knowledge/skill doesn't mean the knowledge and skills of a medically trained person (i.e. the doctor theory for JtR), and certainly nothing in their testimony at the Eddowes inquest contradicts that. The "hack and slash" idea, therefore, would be entirely in line with Dr. Sequeria, but also in line with someone who cuts up animals.

- jeff

What they said and what the reality is that they were wrong, and their inconsistent changeable comments show that. How would someone used to cutting up animals have the knowledge and expertise to be able to locate and remove organs from a human being. There is far to much empahsis placed on some of these opinions from the doctors, whicn have now been disproved by modern day medical experts.

There were slaughter houses located in the East End but they mainly slaughtered cattle and sheep, very pigs were slaughtered because the East End was predominantly Jewish who dont eat pork.

The only thing the cut and slash applies to is the murder and mutilation!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Once again we differ

Chapman Inquest

[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it.

Eddowes Inquest

[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I'm not sure what we disagree on? Dr. Brown indicates anatomical knowledge and skill was shown, and later in his testimony he confirms such knowledge and skill could be obtained by one used to cutting up animals. Dr. Sequeria, however, testifies he does not think there was even the knowledge/skill of one used to cutting up animals. They differed in their opinions (as is often the case with opinions). All I was saying was that anatomical knowledge/skill doesn't mean the knowledge and skills of a medically trained person (i.e. the doctor theory for JtR), and certainly nothing in their testimony at the Eddowes inquest contradicts that. The "hack and slash" idea, therefore, would be entirely in line with Dr. Sequeria, but also in line with someone who cuts up animals.

- jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

These kind of experiments can be like flight simulators. You know the conditions, you are not in a panic, you know what you are looking for. We don't know the Ripper knew what he was going for or whether it was spur of the moment. I am pretty sure he was in a panic or at least was spreeish as he would be aware the Police patroled the square. You can't truly recreate the conditions. The one true thing that can't be replicated is a serial killer elated on the fantasy being completed and also situationally aware of a Policeman catching him in seconds.

That's a really good point, it applies equally to both sides of the argument. Certainly not something that's taken into account often.

[Trevor Marriott]

Anatomical knowledge is not, nor did they mean at the time, surgical knowledge. Dr Brown testified that cutting up animals would be enough, and Dr Sequeria didn't even think that level of knowledge was evedent. Dr S was of the opinion that no specific organ was targeted, rather random bits were taken. Knowledge and skill beyond that was really only ever suggested for Chapman's case due to the removal of the entire uterus (unlike the botched job on Eddowes). In other words, there is good reason to consider the cut and slash approach as a great deal of medical testimony by people who examined the actual victims were not convinced otherwise. For us to do so would be unsafe.

- Jeff

Once again we differ

Chapman Inquest

[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it.

Eddowes Inquest

[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

In the cases of chapman and eddowes the medical evidence shows that anatomical knowledge was evident in the removal of the organs. So the cut and slash theory is out of the equation in the alleged removal of the organs but the cut and slash fits just the murder and mutilation

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Anatomical knowledge is not, nor did they mean at the time, surgical knowledge. Dr Brown testified that cutting up animals would be enough, and Dr Sequeria didn't even think that level of knowledge was evedent. Dr S was of the opinion that no specific organ was targeted, rather random bits were taken. Knowledge and skill beyond that was really only ever suggested for Chapman's case due to the removal of the entire uterus (unlike the botched job on Eddowes). In other words, there is good reason to consider the cut and slash approach as a great deal of medical testimony by people who examined the actual victims were not convinced otherwise. For us to do so would be unsafe.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

These kind of experiments can be like flight simulators. You know the conditions, you are not in a panic, you know what you are looking for. We don't know the Ripper knew what he was going for or whether it was spur of the moment. I am pretty sure he was in a panic or at least was spreeish as he would be aware the Police patroled the square. You can't truly recreate the conditions. The one true thing that can't be replicated is a serial killer elated on the fantasy being completed and also situationally aware of a Policeman catching him in seconds.

In the cases of chapman and eddowes the medical evidence shows that anatomical knowledge was evident in the removal of the organs. So the cut and slash theory is out of the equation in the alleged removal of the organs but the cut and slash fits just the murder and mutilation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sunny Delight]

I am sorry Jeff but you are way off track it tells us that it takes an experieced modern day medical expert working quickly 4 mins to open up an abdomen and remove a uterus and kidney in the same way the killer is supposed to have removed them at the crime scene. There is no way a killer or anyome esle in 1888 could have carried out those same removals in that same time it would be impossibe and this experiment proves that.

The medical expert had everyhting going for him light, proper equipment surgical gloves to aid the removal quickly, light to be able to see what he was doing, a body laid out on a table to be able to work on, none of thse were available to the killer, and I must remind you again that Brown states at least 5 mins add to that other relevant times and actions the killer was responsible for at the crime scene and you run out of time, and not forgetting the degree of difficulty there would have been in trying to work in a blood filled abdomen with a long bladed knife

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

These kind of experiments can be like flight simulators. You know the conditions, you are not in a panic, you know what you are looking for. We don't know the Ripper knew what he was going for or whether it was spur of the moment. I am pretty sure he was in a panic or at least was spreeish as he would be aware the Police patroled the square. You can't truly recreate the conditions. The one true thing that can't be replicated is a serial killer elated on the fantasy being completed and also situationally aware of a Policeman catching him in seconds.

[JeffHamm]

I am sorry Jeff but you are way off track it tells us that it takes an experieced modern day medical expert working quickly 4 mins to open up an abdomen and remove a uterus and kidney in the same way the killer is supposed to have removed them at the crime scene. There is no way a killer or anyome esle in 1888 could have carried out those same removals in that same time it would be impossibe and this experiment proves that.

The medical expert had everyhting going for him light, proper equipment surgical gloves to aid the removal quickly, light to be able to see what he was doing, a body laid out on a table to be able to work on, none of thse were available to the killer, and I must remind you again that Brown states at least 5 mins add to that other relevant times and actions the killer was responsible for at the crime scene and you run out of time, and not forgetting the degree of difficulty there would have been in trying to work in a blood filled abdomen with a long bladed knife

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

That's one assumption but we don't know that and so that creates great doubt about it

- Jeff