Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

[MrBarnett]

Sorry I cant remember

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No worries, I looked it up. WWD, himself a surgeon, does believe that whoever opened up Eddowes was surgically trained.

He is also of the opinion that the section of her intestine that was cut out and left by the body was the descending colon, which lies directly in front of the left kidney and was probably removed to give the killer better access to that organ.

Two experts, two completely different opinions.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Do remember off the top of your head whether Wynne Weston-Davies thought the killer of Eddowes had any surgical experience?

Gary

Sorry I cant remember

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

You have to know where they are located to be able to remove them its not like a lucky dip

Mr Neale a consulatnt gynecolgoist opines that the abdomen of Eddowes was opened in a way not conducive with someone with anatomical knowledge, so if the killer of Edowes didnt have the anatomical knowledge to enter the abdomen he sure didnt have the anatomical knowledge to remove the organs as is being suggested.

On the subject of anatomical knowledge Mr Neale also opines that the uterus from both Chapman and Eddowes were removed by using two differnet methods what is the chance of a killer being that highly skilled to be able to effect those organ removals using two differnet methods?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Do remember off the top of your head whether Wynne Weston-Davies thought the killer of Eddowes had any surgical experience?

Gary

[Trevor Marriott]

Doesn't anatomical knowledge refer to where the organs were situated in the body?One might know where the organs are situated,but not have the skill to remove them cleanly.

You have to know where they are located to be able to remove them its not like a lucky dip

Mr Neale a consulatnt gynecolgoist opines that the abdomen of Eddowes was opened in a way not conducive with someone with anatomical knowledge, so if the killer of Edowes didnt have the anatomical knowledge to enter the abdomen he sure didnt have the anatomical knowledge to remove the organs as is being suggested.

On the subject of anatomical knowledge Mr Neale also opines that the uterus from both Chapman and Eddowes were removed by using two differnet methods what is the chance of a killer being that highly skilled to be able to effect those organ removals using two differnet methods?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Doesn't anatomical knowledge refer to where the organs were situated in the body?One might know where the organs are situated,but not have the skill to remove them cleanly.

[Trevor Marriott]

So let me get this straight ,
When a Victorian Dr from 1888 suggest at the inquest that Anatomical knowledge was present at Chapman and Eddowes murders, you have no problem whatsoever in believing that suggestion when it suits you .

It doesnt suit me it is fact

However when the same Drs give a suggested time of death in both cases your view changes to one of '' we cant take what drs back then say as accurate , or its simply guesswork, or to be taken with a grain of salt .

Times of death as given by the Victorian doctors have been proven to be nothing more than guesswork

Please don t say again the organs were taken out after she was taken away , and that some medical person was responsible for what Dr Brown later decribed at his post mortem on the sunday afternoon ? No proof of that theory exist, and i believe its an insult to the memory of Catherine Eddowes to suggest it .

I am saying exactly that and my previous post on this topic in my opinion confirms that, can you prove me wrong?

As for kelly Please show proof that the killer didnt use the same anatomical knowledge while removing uterus , liver ,kidneys and intestines. They could just as easily have been removed the same way as Eddowes and Chapman . the words ''ripped ,tore, are not present when one reads Dr Bonds postmortem . Its possible JtR could have butchered her to pieces after these items were ''placed'' [oh thats sounds like posing] around her body. Chapman , Eddowes and Kelly were as the'' overwhelming accepted'' view, all killed by the same hand

Then if that had been the case why did the killer not take them away after all he could have removed and taken away all of the internal organs cutting them out with the same anatomical knowledge he allegedly used to remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at their crime scenes

Had the organs taken from Kelly had have been removed by someone with anatomical knowledge that would have been visible to the Doctors who attenened Kellys crime scene and the post mortem in the absence of anything to show that was the case you have to accept that no anatomical knowledge was shown as being present.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Its not about the organs harvesting its about the two different methods used to extract the organs from the three victims.

Anatomical knowledge was clearly shown by whoever removed the organs from Chapman and eddowes when none was shown by whoever murdered Kelly when that person had the time, and light available to him to effectivley remove and take away all her internal organs but he didnt he ripped/tore.cut them out without showing any anatomical knowledge.

Now that to me shows either two different killers. or the killer of Chapman and Eddowes didnt remove and take away the organs at the crime scene which is what I have stated all along so now reserchers have some serious re evaluating to be done.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So let me get this straight , When a Victorian Dr from 1888 suggest at the inquest that Anatomical knowledge was present at Chapman and Eddowes murders, you have no problem whatsoever in believing that suggestion when it suits you . However when the same Drs give a suggested time of death in both cases your view changes to one of '' we cant take what drs back then say as accurate , or its simply guesswork, or to be taken with a grain of salt .
Please don t say again the organs were taken out after she was taken away , and that some medical person was responsible for what Dr Brown later decribed at his post mortem on the sunday afternoon ? No proof of that theory exist, and i believe its an insult to the memory of Catherine Eddowes to suggest it .

As for kelly Please show proof that the killer didnt use the same anatomical knowledge while removing uterus , liver ,kidneys and intestines. They could just as easily have been removed the same way as Eddowes and Chapman . the words ''ripped ,tore, are not present when one reads Dr Bonds postmortem . Its possible JtR could have butchered her to pieces after these items were ''placed'' [oh thats sounds like posing] around her body. Chapman , Eddowes and Kelly were as the'' overwhelming accepted'' view, all killed by the same hand




'' so now reserchers have some serious re evaluating to be done.''

[Trevor Marriott]

Who determined those differences - Victorian doctors?

They have been in plain sight for 132 years for all to see but it seems they have been ignored until now.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Its not about the organs harvesting its about the two different methods used to extract the organs from the three victims.

Anatomical knowledge was clearly shown by whoever removed the organs from Chapman and eddowes when none was shown by whoever murdered Kelly when that person had the time, and light available to him to effectivley remove and take away all her internal organs but he didnt he ripped/tore.cut them out without showing any anatomical knowledge.

Now that to me shows either two different killers. or the killer of Chapman and Eddowes didnt remove and take away the organs at the crime scene which is what I have stated all along so now reserchers have some serious re evaluating to be done.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Who determined those differences - Victorian doctors?

[JeffHamm]

But what he is stating is fact, people are still beliveing what the Victorian doctors stated even though there is modern medical expert opinions and evidence to show the Victorian doctors were wrong and their opinions given in good faith were guesswork at times. We see no direct evidence of their opinions being challenged but as Dr Biggs states everyone automatically belived what they were saying.

This is where the Victorian doctors opinions have to be treated with caution and not readily accepted as being correct.

You are arguing on a trivialty, and being a bit pedantic if I may say so

www.trevormarriott,co,uk

Hi Trevor,

No, I don't think it is a triviality, or being pedantic. Yes, at the time the doctor's views were, as today, considered expert opinions with regards to medical issues. That's hardly surprising; they were the experts of the day. And yes, the methods and techniques of 1888 were far less reliable and accurate than what we know today, and as you say, included some measures that amount to little more than guesswork. All of this I agree with, and indeed, have said myself on more than a few occasions. And it is important that we keep that in mind - the medical opinion was given in good faith, but often used techniques that we now know are unreliable. That means, even if we ourselves are not medically trained, we can still argue to set aside medical opinion from 1888 when it is based upon provenly unreliable methods.

However, the claim that in 1888 the doctor's opinions were viewed as infallible is not, I believe, accurate as they were challenged at times. Baxter points out that medical opinions may differ, I believe during the Chapman case when arguing about why the details of her injuries should be presented into evidence. The police discussed the differences between the witness testimony and the doctor's estimated ToD as a problem with regards to how the evidence does not produce a single tidy story, which would be a problem for the prosecutor should they ever arrest someone (there are memos where they mention the conflict between those, and indicate it is a shame or words to that effect).

In other words, we do see signs that coroners and police did not accept the medical opinion as gospel - how could they when the opinions often covered the entire spectrum of possibilities (estimates of anatomical knowledge and/or skill ranged to none at all to familiarity with post mortems). We even see witnesses, like Richardson, insisting that Chapman was not dead and in the yard when he sat to trim his boot, well after the doctor's estimate of the ToD as well. It is obvious that if he were asked what he thought of the doctor's opinion it would not be flattering.

What I'm getting at is that we do see indications that the doctor's opinions did not go unquestioned, and would not be universally viewed as correct without question. They weren't questioned the way we are questioning them, of course, as we are aware that the techniques of the day are inadequate, which is information not available (or at least not widely known) at the time. But their opinion was not automatically viewed as if it could not be wrong, and it would be a mistake on our part to assume that the police, or the coroner, or even the general public, did not themselves question the accuracy of the medical opinion. If we do, that bias, which I believe to be incorrect, will skew our interpretation of how the police (in particular) may have acted. And that, I think, is not a trivial issue, but opinions may vary.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Apologies, Trevor. I will respond:

Since you have no issue with a single killer escalating from frenzied stabbing to throat cutting and disembowelling in a few weeks, you will have no issue with organ-harvesting possibly being a passing fancy, or perhaps something he felt compelled to do when he had limited time with a body.

We should try to keep this thread to considerations of the significance of the differences (and similarities) between the Tabram attack and subsequent ones.

Its not about the organs harvesting its about the two different methods used to extract the organs from the three victims.

Anatomical knowledge was clearly shown by whoever removed the organs from Chapman and eddowes when none was shown by whoever murdered Kelly when that person had the time, and light available to him to effectivley remove and take away all her internal organs but he didnt he ripped/tore.cut them out without showing any anatomical knowledge.

Now that to me shows either two different killers. or the killer of Chapman and Eddowes didnt remove and take away the organs at the crime scene which is what I have stated all along so now reserchers have some serious re evaluating to be done.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

We will agree to disagree as to whether or not Dr Biggs needs to be a medical historian in Victorian Medicine to give his opinions. But his expert knowledge has been invaluable to me as an investigator even though his opinions on the Victorian Doctors opinions which I have contiuned to post on here have not been well received by those who have their own agendas and their own specific theories.

On the topic of Dr Killeen and Martha Tabram here are his comments in relatio to the sugestions that two knives were used as sugested by Dr Killeen it is another example as to why we should treat with caution what the Victorian Doctors stated back then

“Sometimes, a particular knife will leave specific tell-tale signs in the skin that indicate that it has been used, for example, a serrated knife will sometimes leave regular serration marks along the edge of the wound. However, that is not always the case, and so serrated blades can leave “non-serrated” marks, “double-edged” blades can leave apparently “single-edged” marks, etc. In reality, most stab wounds look like generic stab wounds and tell us very little about the blade other than some crude dimensions. So, in theory, there might be a situation where two very specific blades have left their “signatures” in the skin of the same victim, therefore “proving” two different blades have been used… but far more commonly the same blade will simply have left behind lots of wounds of different shapes, leading the observer to think that perhaps more than one blade was used”

“Most of the stab wound cases we deal with are caused by a single weapon, even though wounds in the same victim may vary considerably in appearance. We often get asked in court whether multiple knives could have been used in a particular case, and where there is more than one wound we invariably have to say “it’s possible” as it is something we can (never say) never rule out”

“Getting back to the case in question, it is entirely feasible for a “normal” knife to penetrate the chest bone, so there is no need for a separate dagger-type weapon to have been used. It is far more likely that a single implement was used, and that the different appearance of the wounds is nothing more than the variation than we expect to see in such cases”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for this Trevor. If you haven’t used up too much of Dr B’s patience already, could you ask him what the significance of the clenched hands might have been?

[MrBarnett]

Very good point and I totally agree I am in no position to really make a judgement here. However, I do think we can and should sometimes question especially with the bonus of hindsight and modern understanding of both serial killers and medical approaches. I think Trevor makes some really good points above about knives. Things that Killeen just would not be aware of. Nor was e aware of the fact that this was to be part (not saying linked) of a series of murders in the local area that would last for the next four years. This surely must be a factor, as was the fact that Tabram did show some elements that may have indicated that she was strangled. Of course not likely but is it possible that he missed something? The answer has to be yes. I am not saying he got it wrong, just maybe not entirely right. You yourself have alluded to his competence in earlier posts. I just think there is a strong possibility that Tabram was killed by the same hand as at least some of the others. That is at least worth exploring IMO. I don't have a favourite suspect or a particular angle i want/need to pursue. Just looking at this from a purely psychological perspective, thinking he had to start somewhere. For me, once you put all the peripheral stuff aside, account for certain aspects overlooked in the PM and consider modern understanding of murderers, I really think there is a fairly coherent argument for putting Tabram down as a first victim.

I could be barking up the wrong tree of course! I really appreciate your responses that do make me wonder a lot.

When we are staying on track, this is turning into a really interesting discussion. So thanks everyone for contributing!

Yes, I’m enjoying it too!

[MrBarnett]

FAO Mr Barnett
I notice you nor anyone else has chosen to make any reply to this post which the contents are very important to the investigation into all the murders, and the suggestion of one killer and one killer only. Is it because there is no plausible explantion other than the one I postulate?

If you accept one killer and one killer for all the murders then i am 100% correct in suggesting that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and eddowes at their crime scenes or are we now 132 years later going to remove Mary Kelly as a victim of JTR to maintain the organ removals at the crime scenes

This is such a momentous day in Ripperology

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Apologies, Trevor. I will respond:

Since you have no issue with a single killer escalating from frenzied stabbing to throat cutting and disembowelling in a few weeks, you will have no issue with organ-harvesting possibly being a passing fancy, or perhaps something he felt compelled to do when he had limited time with a body.

We should try to keep this thread to considerations of the significance of the differences (and similarities) between the Tabram attack and subsequent ones.

[Losmandris]

His sole task was to determine what caused Martha’s death and you claim he got it wrong. Without having seen the body in situ or having carried out a PM a layman such as yourself can see what he couldn’t. He couldn’t have got it much more wrong.

Very good point and I totally agree I am in no position to really make a judgement here. However, I do think we can and should sometimes question especially with the bonus of hindsight and modern understanding of both serial killers and medical approaches. I think Trevor makes some really good points above about knives. Things that Killeen just would not be aware of. Nor was e aware of the fact that this was to be part (not saying linked) of a series of murders in the local area that would last for the next four years. This surely must be a factor, as was the fact that Tabram did show some elements that may have indicated that she was strangled. Of course not likely but is it possible that he missed something? The answer has to be yes. I am not saying he got it wrong, just maybe not entirely right. You yourself have alluded to his competence in earlier posts. I just think there is a strong possibility that Tabram was killed by the same hand as at least some of the others. That is at least worth exploring IMO. I don't have a favourite suspect or a particular angle i want/need to pursue. Just looking at this from a purely psychological perspective, thinking he had to start somewhere. For me, once you put all the peripheral stuff aside, account for certain aspects overlooked in the PM and consider modern understanding of murderers, I really think there is a fairly coherent argument for putting Tabram down as a first victim.

I could be barking up the wrong tree of course! I really appreciate your responses that do make me wonder a lot.

When we are staying on track, this is turning into a really interesting discussion. So thanks everyone for contributing!