Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

    Good question Mr B.

    He did not mention it but there seems to be evidence that strangulation could have taken place. The Illustrated Police News on 18 August 1888 reports that Tabram had received severe injuries to the head, the result of "being throttled while held down, and the face and head so swollen and distorted in consequence that her real features are not discernible." Also that Tabram was found on her back, her hands clenched in a repose suggesting strangulation. (thanks Quentin L. Pittman, www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-recanon.html)

    If this was the case it would seem like strangulation was quite likely. But as you say surely this would have been at least acknowledged at the PM? Strange?
    That wording appeared in Lloyds on 12th August. Where they got it from is anyone’s guess. They also said she had been ‘forcibly dragged up to the place where she was found…’ and they seemingly misunderstood Killeen’s opinion that just one of Martha’s wounds was made by something like a dagger. Of course, they preferred to describe it as a bayonet rather than a dagger, saying, ‘That the stabs were from a weapon like a bayonet is almost established beyond doubt.’ The soldier angle was being spun from very early on.

    Comment


    • #32
      A few hours after the discovery of Tabram’s body, Francis Hewitt was regaling a reporter from the Sheffield Evening Telegraph with tales of soldiers and bayonet wounds.

      Was he a forensic expert?

      The most likely source for his info was eavesdropping on a conversation between Killeen and PC Barrett.

      From the SET of 8th August:
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
        A few hours after the discovery of Tabram’s body, Francis Hewitt was regaling a reporter from the Sheffield Evening Telegraph with tales of soldiers and bayonet wounds.

        Was he a forensic expert?

        The most likely source for his info was eavesdropping on a conversation between Killeen and PC Barrett.

        From the SET of 8th August:
        Incidentally, Pearly Poll didn’t disclose her soldier story until the following day.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          Incidentally, Pearly Poll didn’t disclose her soldier story until the following day.
          All very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I often wonder if Pearly Poll was in it for her 15 minutes of fame (or 130 years of infamy within certain circles ) What do you think about the strangulation angle? Should it be dismissed?
          Best Regards,

          Tristan

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Which is what george was saying , so which do you think?. your unrealistic post 24. Or accepted wounds to her cheeks were deliberate? Or do you require a 3rd go?
            No you stick with you misguied beliefs which have no foundation

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

              All very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I often wonder if Pearly Poll was in it for her 15 minutes of fame (or 130 years of infamy within certain circles ) What do you think about the strangulation angle? Should it be dismissed?
              I’m not convinced that she was strangled. The puffy face and visible tongue may have been the result of post-mortem changes. I think if there had been obvious signs of strangulation, Killeen would have mentioned it.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                I’m not convinced that she was strangled. The puffy face and visible tongue may have been the result of post-mortem changes. I think if there had been obvious signs of strangulation, Killeen would have mentioned it.
                from Dr Biggs

                A swollen tongue and / or face are non-specific findings. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  from Dr Biggs

                  A swollen tongue and / or face are non-specific findings. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Interesting. Thanks for that Trevor.

                  So I am assuming that if she was strangled, this would have been very obvious and something barring incompetence or something, would have been picked up during the PM?

                  Best Regards,

                  Tristan

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                    Interesting. Thanks for that Trevor.

                    So I am assuming that if she was strangled, this would have been very obvious and something barring incompetence or something, would have been picked up during the PM?
                    Sounds like Dr Biggs agrees with me on this. :-)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      No you stick with you misguied beliefs which have no foundation

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Oh good ,im glad that games over , you know ,the one where you make a statement and then wont answer a simple question when asked about it . .feel free to point out my "misguided beliefs" as i dont recall having mentioned any made about Eddowes facials injuries. ..ill let george know about post 24 so never mind.
                      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                        Tabram's injuries were stab wounds. Bagster Phillip's said when he was recalled to Chapman's inquest that medical opinion was that the stomach mutilations in Nicholls case were prior to the throat cutting where as Chapman had her throat cut before the mutilations. At the Chapman inquest the coroner concluded "the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts". This does not sound like a frenzied attack. At the Stride inquest the coroner concluded "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator". Eddows was the first to receive facial injuries, believed by psychologists to be an indication that the murderer and victim knew each other. Were the slits to the eyes and the V's pointing to the slits a message that she had seen too much? Kelly was a complete change of MO.

                        There is some speculation that the murder weapon was a Liston knife, which is double edged and designed to be used with a stab and cut upwards action.

                        We have the choice: Did JtR change his MO as he went along, or was there more than one killer involved?

                        Cheers, George
                        Hi George , Those cuts to the eyelids were indeed delibrate and they were done ''After'' Eddowes had her throat cut , death was instant, there where no defensive wounds on her hands ,no sign of any struggle ,no scream, he wasnt trying to cut her throat he just did it and very quickly. To even suggest that she was trying to avoid the blade is just nonsence , I suggest you read Dr Fredrick Browns post mortem, which here is a part of ''The throat had been so instantly severed that no noise could have been emitted''. We may never know the motive behined the cuts to her eyelids , but we do know for certain they were administered after death occured . Cheers
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                          Good reading George , im also reading reports here on casebook that Deeming was in fact in South Africa at the time of the murders , as far as suspects goes that doesnt bode well for him .
                          Hi Fishy,

                          I believe the report that he was in South Africa at the time arose when two detectives arrived in Australia looking for Deeming as a suspect for a murder in South Africa but found he was not the man they were after. I think the later research had discredited that theory and placed him in England during the Autumn of Terror.

                          I don't agree with Trevor's theory. IMO the cuts on the eyes and cheeks were too precise to be accidental.

                          Cheer, George
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                          Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Hi Fishy,

                            I believe the report that he was in South Africa at the time arose when two detectives arrived in Australia looking for Deeming as a suspect for a murder in South Africa but found he was not the man they were after. I think the later research had discredited that theory and placed him in England during the Autumn of Terror.

                            I don't agree with Trevor's theory. IMO the cuts on the eyes and cheeks were too precise to be accidental.

                            Cheer, George
                            Thanks George , Interesting. But having just read the life and crimes of Fredrick Deeming here on casebook i just dont think his our man .I guess the killing of 4 children doesnt fit the jtr mo . But thats just me .As for the the cuts to the eyelids , enough said of that hey . Fishy
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Fishy,

                              I believe the report that he was in South Africa at the time arose when two detectives arrived in Australia looking for Deeming as a suspect for a murder in South Africa but found he was not the man they were after. I think the later research had discredited that theory and placed him in England during the Autumn of Terror.

                              I don't agree with Trevor's theory. IMO the cuts on the eyes and cheeks were too precise to be accidental.

                              Cheer, George
                              If you belive the cuts were to precise to have been caused by the knife in the way decsribed, and the pics i posted shows what looks like crosses on her cheeks then you should read and consider Chapter 9 in my book which gives another "possible" explantion for the precise cuts you refer to. I personally dont belive the cuts were that precise and that the photos were taken some time later after death and after the post mortem when the body transforms itself during the rigor mortis process.

                              The photos of Eddowes face clearly shows that during the post mortem stitches were applied to the facial cuts giving them now a deceptive appearance.

                              The crosses highlighted could have been created when a stitch was applied to the cut but if you follow the cut lines from the bridge of the nose to the cheek they follow an almost diagonal path thus in my opinion adding more weight to the knife wielding angle rather than precise cuts.

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	19.Kate Eddowes Face NEW 2.jpg
Views:	160
Size:	209.1 KB
ID:	780193 Click image for larger version

Name:	18.Kate Eddowes Face NEW 1.jpg
Views:	150
Size:	19.9 KB
ID:	780194


                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                If you belive the cuts were to precise to have been caused by the knife in the way decsribed, and the pics i posted shows what looks like crosses on her cheeks then you should read and consider Chapter 9 in my book which gives another "possible" explantion for the precise cuts you refer to. I personally dont belive the cuts were that precise and that the photos were taken some time later after death and after the post mortem when the body transforms itself during the rigor mortis process.

                                The photos of Eddowes face clearly shows that during the post mortem stitches were applied to the facial cuts giving them now a deceptive appearance.

                                The crosses highlighted could have been created when a stitch was applied to the cut but if you follow the cut lines from the bridge of the nose to the cheek they follow an almost diagonal path thus in my opinion adding more weight to the knife wielding angle rather than precise cuts.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	19.Kate Eddowes Face NEW 2.jpg
Views:	160
Size:	209.1 KB
ID:	780193 Click image for larger version

Name:	18.Kate Eddowes Face NEW 1.jpg
Views:	150
Size:	19.9 KB
ID:	780194


                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Hi Trevor,

                                I agree that the stitches distort the evidence. The diagram here:
                                https://photos.casebook.org/displayi...album=35&pos=9
                                shows the cuts to the eyes and the inverted V's pointing to those cuts.

                                Cheers, George
                                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                                Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X