Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

[MrBarnett]

I think he decides the slash to the throat is best way to go after Tabram. He clearly wanted to dispatch her straight away but the stabs to the throat following either some kind of strangulation attempt or blow to the head did not do the job. I think Tabram is killed by all the other stabs. The one to the heart is a coup de grace for him to make sure. It clearly took a lot of effort. Hence not being repeated in subsequent murders.

So why do you think Killeen got it so wrong?

Clearly he believed the heart wound was inflicted while Martha was alive and it would have been fatal.

[Trevor Marriott]

So why do you think Killeen got it so wrong?

Clearly he believed the heart wound was inflicted while Martha was alive and it would have been fatal.

Quote from Dr Biggs on Victorian Doctors opinions

"In 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

and in 2022 people are still believing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Losmandris]

So why do you think Killeen got it so wrong?

Clearly he believed the heart wound was inflicted while Martha was alive and it would have been fatal.

I don't he got it so wrong. Just things a little out of order. I think it was the murderer that really got things wrong!

[MrBarnett]

I don't he got it so wrong. Just things a little out of order. I think it was the murderer that really got things wrong!

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.

[erobitha]

If you remove the killer taking away organs from the victims, you are left with just murder and mutilation only which is what is shown in all the murders and the common denominator in all the murders including Tabram, and the later ones of Coles and Mckenzie

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And if you take away the fact they were prostitutes then the common denominator was that they were all women. If you remove that denominator then you can safely say they were humans.

Easy this detective lark. You just keep removing things until you get a story you want. I should have done that sooner.

[JeffHamm]

Quote from Dr Biggs on Victorian Doctors opinions

"In 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

and in 2022 people are still believing

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

With all due respect, unless Dr. Biggs has a background in historical sociology, his views on what people did or did not believe in this regard is more likely to reflect modern day assumptions about the Victorian era than actual fact. Being a modern day expert in medicine doesn't mean he's an expert in medical history, or the history of society's views towards medical practitioners. That would be the provenance of a historian, who in turn would not suddenly become an expert in the applied practice of medicine.

We do know that there seemed to be little problem with people accepting the idea that the murderer may have been a doctor, or at least medically trained, suggesting that the idea that doctors were viewed as sacred and beyond criticism is perhaps a bit of romantising on our part. The fact that today people are more willing to be outspoken, or even to outright deny, the input from experts is a relatively recent common phenomenon but it's not like it emerged out of nowhere. There have always been sceptics of expert opinion, and rightly so. Experts can be influenced by political, monetary, and other inducements just like any other person (experts are people too after all). Where scepticism becomes dangerous, however, is when one shifts from questioning the expert's statement as being free from such influence to then presuming that one's own opinion is somehow more informed despite being a complete novice. Just because an expert's view might be skewed by some external force doesn't transfer that insight to the sceptic.

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

So, he learned how difficult it was to kill someone by throttling them, hitting them or stabbing them with a small knife and discovered that stabbing them with a dagger thrust to the heart was the way to go but thought he’d ring the changes next time and try a method he’d never employed before?

Anything’s possible, I suppose. It’s also possible that these two very different attacks were by two different assailants.

I think most people would agree that strangling a victim is a quick way of silencing them rather than stab them with a knife to begin with, which may bring on a noise of pain, scream or for help. Perhaps Jack knew this with an earlier attack where he tried to attack a victim with a knife first of all before subduing her and she screamed thus scaring him off .

Following on from this I believe it is generally accepted that Jack strangled [ or attempted to ] his victims first. Is there evidence that Martha was strangled ? Well the hands clenched tightly by her side is an indicator and didn't I read somewhere about her tongue being slightly protruding ?
Suppose Martha was strangled before her killer used his knife . Martha may have put up a strong struggle [ the bang to the back of the head may have been caused in the struggle , against, say a wall ], She falls [ through strangulation or the banging of the skull ] , and if it is the killers first kill in his blind panic, and anger he stabs her frequently and quickly [ being a reason why her wounds aren't as deep ], to make sure she is dead . Perhaps he even meant to cut Martha open once he had calmed down with the blow to the sternum but was disturbed by a noise/light etc so he withdrew his knife and fled

I also feel that he hadn't completely refined his use of the knife with Polly [ note the jagged wounds to her stomach ], not quite the clean vertical incision you would think if it was just the organs Jack was after.

So we have possible strangulation before an attack with a knife , a cut/attack to Martha's privates, her raised skirt, same victimology , same district and same time frame with no evidence of sexual assault or robbery being a prime motive .

Jack has to be a strong suspect

Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

With all due respect, unless Dr. Biggs has a background in historical sociology, his views on what people did or did not believe in this regard is more likely to reflect modern day assumptions about the Victorian era than actual fact. Being a modern day expert in medicine doesn't mean he's an expert in medical history, or the history of society's views towards medical practitioners. That would be the provenance of a historian, who in turn would not suddenly become an expert in the applied practice of medicine.

We do know that there seemed to be little problem with people accepting the idea that the murderer may have been a doctor, or at least medically trained, suggesting that the idea that doctors were viewed as sacred and beyond criticism is perhaps a bit of romantising on our part. The fact that today people are more willing to be outspoken, or even to outright deny, the input from experts is a relatively recent common phenomenon but it's not like it emerged out of nowhere. There have always been sceptics of expert opinion, and rightly so. Experts can be influenced by political, monetary, and other inducements just like any other person (experts are people too after all). Where scepticism becomes dangerous, however, is when one shifts from questioning the expert's statement as being free from such influence to then presuming that one's own opinion is somehow more informed despite being a complete novice. Just because an expert's view might be skewed by some external force doesn't transfer that insight to the sceptic.

- Jeff

Dr Biggs is cleary an expert in medical history which i would imagine was a part of his lenghty training but his comments all through his involvement are based on his lengthy experience as a forensic patholgist and as such he is entitled to give his valid opinions as to opinions given by Victorian Doctors 132 years ago which have to be taken on board, On the issue discussed it isnt hard for anyone even those not medically trained to challenge Killeens comment and dismiss it outright as being nothing more than guesswork which is what is seen throughout all of these murders by the Victorian Doctors. Thats not a slur on them they were doing their best. But 132 years later modern day experts like Dr Biggs are in a positon to show that those doctors opinions from 1888 cannot be relied upon.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And if you take away the fact they were prostitutes then the common denominator was that they were all women. If you remove that denominator then you can safely say they were humans.

According to Ms Rubenhold they were not prostitutes

Easy this detective lark. You just keep removing things until you get a story you want. I should have done that sooner.

Yes you are right it is, then you get to the truth, and then you have to re educate numpties like you to accpet the truth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Dr Biggs is cleary an expert in medical history which i would imagine was a part of his lenghty training but his comments all through his involvement are based on his lengthy experience as a forensic patholgist and as such he is entitled to give his valid opinions as to opinions given by Victorian Doctors 132 years ago which have to be taken on board, On the issue discussed it isnt hard for anyone even those not medically trained to challenge Killeens comment and dismiss it outright as being nothing more than guesswork which is what is seen throughout all of these murders by the Victorian Doctors. Thats not a slur on them they were doing their best. But 132 years later modern day experts like Dr Biggs are in a positon to show that those doctors opinions from 1888 cannot be relied upon.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I did not mean to imply that Dr. Bigg's view of the medical testimony from 1888 needs updating at all. What I was questioning is whether he has the expertise on social attitudes towards the medical profession beyond that of a laymen. His medical opinions are clearly in his area of expertise and should therefore be viewed as such; noting of course that experts will differ in their opinions and so one must consider the opinions from multiple experts and hope by doing so be able to recognize some sort of common middle ground. I don't know Dr. Bigg's, or what his areas of speciality are, so if he is a trained historian with regards to the Victorian area and their views towards the medical profession, then I would happily stand corrected if that's the case. But to date, there has been no mention of this side to his scholarship, and I would suggest that medical training alone, no matter the degree of modern expertise, does not automatically impart upon that person a knowledge of historical attitudes. And it was only the opinion he gave on that last point that I was referring to, which should not be misconstrued as a blanket dismissal of his opinions that fall within his medical areas of expertise.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I did not mean to imply that Dr. Bigg's view of the medical testimony from 1888 needs updating at all. What I was questioning is whether he has the expertise on social attitudes towards the medical profession beyond that of a laymen. His medical opinions are clearly in his area of expertise and should therefore be viewed as such; noting of course that experts will differ in their opinions and so one must consider the opinions from multiple experts and hope by doing so be able to recognize some sort of common middle ground. I don't know Dr. Bigg's, or what his areas of speciality are, so if he is a trained historian with regards to the Victorian area and their views towards the medical profession, then I would happily stand corrected if that's the case. But to date, there has been no mention of this side to his scholarship, and I would suggest that medical training alone, no matter the degree of modern expertise, does not automatically impart upon that person a knowledge of historical attitudes. And it was only the opinion he gave on that last point that I was referring to, which should not be misconstrued as a blanket dismissal of his opinions that fall within his medical areas of expertise.

- Jeff

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

[Trevor Marriott]

If they were commited by the same killer yes, and there was no clinical dissection of Kelly her organs wetre simply cut/torn out and no anatomical knowledge shown, which shows that if she was killed by the same killer as the the other victims shows that the organs of Eddowes and Chapman could not have been removed by the killer at the crime scenebecause if it were the same killer he had the time and the opportunity to remove all the vitals organs from Kelly with the anatomical knowledge he is alleged to have shown in removing the organs from Chapman and Eddowes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi Trevor,

And everything above falls within his area of expertise.

However, you seem to have forgotten what the post is that we are discussing, which is this post:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Quote from Dr Biggs on Victorian Doctors opinions

"In 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

and in 2022 people are still believing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in that quote he is not talking about medicine, but social attitudes and views of doctors by the public in the Victorian Era. This is not medicine but social history, and so is outside his area of expertise, and this is the post I was responding to.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

And everything above falls within his area of expertise.

However, you seem to have forgotten what the post is that we are discussing, which is this post:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Quote from Dr Biggs on Victorian Doctors opinions

"In 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

and in 2022 people are still believing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in that quote he is not talking about medicine, but social attitudes and views of doctors by the public in the Victorian Era. This is not medicine but social history, and so is outside his area of expertise, and this is the post I was responding to.

- Jeff

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

[FISHY1118]

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

What nonsense. ,"such a momentous day" seriously?, it any wonder no one replied to that post , it seems your the only one that believes it. .