Was Eddowes Already Dead, When Seen By Lawende & Levy?

[Trevor Marriott]

The killer was acknowledged as attempting to decapitate Annie Chapman.

Nothing academic about that.

It is stated fact.

She had TB of the head.

Fact.

By academic,I surmise you mean "theoretical" as against "scholarly activities".

I think you need to read and understand the content of the pôsts you are hastily rčplying to what had an attempted decapitation got to do with the removal of organs
Secondly it is nothing more than wild speculation that the killer was attempting that

[John G]

Given that an attempt appeared to have been made to take Chapman's head off and an actual forensic pathologist's examination revealed TB there,Gynaecological Oncology is worth consideration.

But surely such a specialism would not be relevant for issues concerning estimating time of death, type of weapon used, and whether the killer was left or right-handed. Or for that matter assessing crime scenes generally. I mean, if someone has a heart problem they would surely be more than a little concerned if, say, they were referred to a rheumatologist rather than a cardiologist!

[Jon Guy]

Secondly it is nothing more than wild speculation that the killer was attempting that

Not wild speculation, Trevor.

The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. Dr Phillips

[Trevor Marriott]

Not wild speculation, Trevor.

The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck. Dr Phillips

Jon

If the killer had gotten as far as that then there was nothing stopping him from completing the task. If you look at the victims all except Stride could be seen to have deep cuts to the throats Nicholls,Chapman, Eddowes I am sure if he wanted a head he had ample opportunity to take one.

The question is can we now rely on anything Victorian Doctors said way back then in the light of what modern day experts now say ? I am sure those who want to prop up the old theories will answer in the affirmative. But others like me who simply seek the truth will tread cautiously.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

I would be interested to know what police standing orders were in 1888, regarding officers remaining at the scene of the crime. Thus, according to Sugden (2002), standing orders were tightened after 1888. This meant that, at the time of the Coles murder, PC Thompson was required to remain with the victim and summon assistance, rather than charge off in hot pursuit of a suspect.

Of course, if there were similar procedures in 1888 this would greatly reduce any risk incurred by the murderer. For instance, he could be reasonably confident that, even if he should be disturbed by a beat officer, that officer would be compelled to remain on site. He would, of course, blow his whistle but that would only summon assistance towards the murder site, by which time the killer would presumably have had ample opportunity to make good his escape.

[Jon Guy]

Jon

If the killer had gotten as far as that then there was nothing stopping him from completing the task. If you look at the victims all except Stride could be seen to have deep cuts to the throats Nicholls,Chapman, Eddowes I am sure if he wanted a head he had ample opportunity to take one.

The question is can we now rely on anything Victorian Doctors said way back then in the light of what modern day experts now say ? I am sure those who want to prop up the old theories will answer in the affirmative. But others like me who simply seek the truth will tread cautiously.

Trevor

Just saying ... that it was not wild speculation.

Was the killer actually attempting to take the head, or it just appeared that way to Dr Phillips (which is what he actually said) ?

[Rosella]

I don't think we can completely discount the conclusions these experienced doctors came to, even if they were Victorians. They, after all, had an opportunity to examine the bodies of the Ripper victims, something no-one in modern times has been able to do.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think we can completely discount the conclusions these experienced doctors came to, even if they were Victorians. They, after all, had an opportunity to examine the bodies of the Ripper victims, something no-one in modern times has been able to do.

I am not saying that we should totally discount some of what they said, but knowing what we know now, what they did say should be treated with caution and not so readily accepted as it has been in the past.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Garry Wroe]

And if we eliminate Watkin's story because he was having a cuppa?

Personally, I’ve long been sceptical about Harvey’s claimed 1:40 am visit to the square, especially given his dismissal the following year for what was clearly some serious breach of regulations. That said, the East London Advertiser, 6 October, 1888, stated: ‘At half-past 1 o'clock Watkins handed a can of tea to the watchman at Messrs. Kearley and Tongue's, tea merchants, named George James Morris, a naval pensioner, telling him to make it hot in 10 minutes' time, when he would then be round again.’

If correct, this account contradicts Morris’s inquest testimony that, until Watkins knocked on the warehouse door immediately after discovering the body, he ‘had not seen Watkins before during the night.’

It probably has no bearing on the case other than alerting us to the reality that not even the police accounts of the time should be taken absolutely on trust. It may also explain why the warehouse door had been ajar for a few minutes at the time of the body’s discovery.

[curious4]

Hello DJA

Can't be sure Chapman had TB of the brain. More likely to be syphilis, one of the symptoms being gait problems and trouble with balance, which would explain why she was thought to be drunk.

Best wishes
C4

[Monty]

I would be interested to know what police standing orders were in 1888, regarding officers remaining at the scene of the crime. Thus, according to Sugden (2002), standing orders were tightened after 1888. This meant that, at the time of the Coles murder, PC Thompson was required to remain with the victim and summon assistance, rather than charge off in hot pursuit of a suspect.

Of course, if there were similar procedures in 1888 this would greatly reduce any risk incurred by the murderer. For instance, he could be reasonably confident that, even if he should be disturbed by a beat officer, that officer would be compelled to remain on site. He would, of course, blow his whistle but that would only summon assistance towards the murder site, by which time the killer would presumably have had ample opportunity to make good his escape.

To stay with the body, and ensure it remains untouched, note the scene, send for the duty Inspector and nearest surgeon.

They were permitted to try an execute a capture, however the condition of the victim was a priority, followed by other parties and himself. In other words, if the constable was sure the victim was dead, and that the public and himself wouldn't be in danger, he could persue.

There was a four whistle code blast devised after the Coles murder, which was never used for obvious reasons.

Monty

[pinkmoon]

I've come to the conclusion that Jack the ripper was a lousy business man if he was in this for the money (doing it so he could flog the organs) why did he leave so many behind he had all time in the world with poor mary kelly but left all of her organs behind he could have retired from her murder alone.

[Trevor Marriott]

I've come to the conclusion that Jack the ripper was a lousy business man if he was in this for the money (doing it so he could flog the organs) why did he leave so many behind he had all time in the world with poor mary kelly but left all of her organs behind he could have retired from her murder alone.

Another aspect of these murders, which questions if the killer did ever remove organs from any of the victims when as you say he could have had a field day with Kelly

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[pinkmoon]

Another aspect of these murders, which questions if the killer did ever remove organs from any of the victims when as you say he could have had a field day with Kelly

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps he had a very good private pension and murdering women was only his hobby.

[John G]

To stay with the body, and ensure it remains untouched, note the scene, send for the duty Inspector and nearest surgeon.

They were permitted to try an execute a capture, however the condition of the victim was a priority, followed by other parties and himself. In other words, if the constable was sure the victim was dead, and that the public and himself wouldn't be in danger, he could persue.

There was a four whistle code blast devised after the Coles murder, which was never used for obvious reasons.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Thanks for the reply. Might the procedures that the officer had to follow imply that the killer was at very limited risk of getting caught? For instance, even if the officer saw or heard an assailant running from the scene he would presumably have to first ascertain that there was a victim. Of course, this might not be immediately apparent, especially in poor light: upon discovering Stride's body Diemschutz informed the club members by stating, "There's a woman lying in the yard but I cannot say whether she's drunk or dead."

And, upon discovering extensive knife injuries, and then determining that the victim was dead, wouldn't the constable, in all likelihood, conclude that it would perhaps be unsafe for him to pursue a knife-wielding maniac without support? Then, after blowing his whistle, he would have to wait for help to arrive. And who would then have the responsibility of coordinating a response? Would the officers have to wait for the arrival of a sergeant or inspector? Of course, by this time the assailant would most probably be long gone, and the police would have little idea of which direction he was heading and perhaps no reliable description.