Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

[erobitha]

A question for Trev and his mystery mortuary harvester theory. Are we talking of one individual or a gang? Being such an esteemed detective, he would have noticed most of the C5 victims went to different mortuaries after their murders, so pray tell? Which is it - a lone harvester or a gang? What was the going rate for prostitutes organs back then? Only two victims ended up at the same mortuary and only one of those had organs removed. Makes no sense Trev.

Polly Nichols (Whitechapel Workhouse Mortuary - no organs removed)
Annie Chapman (Whitechapel Workhouse Mortuary - uterus and partial bladder removed)
Elizabeth Stride (St George's Mortuary - no organs removed)
Catherine Eddowes (Golden Lane Mortuary - kidney removed)
Mary Jane Kelly (Shoreditch Mortuary - possibly heart removed)

Who is the phantom harvester Trevor?

[Losmandris]

Not all, Trevor, questioning your old unaccepted theory doesn’t give any clue as to what theory/theories I may lean towards.

If anything, by bringing Tabram into the Ripper’s body count you are the one who is going with the flow. I lean towards her not being a Ripper victim and have my own person of interest, a blind, vicious, mentally unstable seller of laces who went on to marry Pearly Poll. Although blind, he was apparently a wood carver and may well have carried a collection of bladed implements on his person. What do you know about him? Anything - or are you stuck in your old unnaccepted groove and unwilling to consider new ideas?

Having done a bit of research into Dr Killeen, the thing that stands out for me is how inexperienced he was. He’d only just qualified in Dublin and it’s possible that Tabram’s was the first PM he had ever carried out. He may never have seen a stab wound previously. So the multiple weapon idea has to be treated with caution.

‘Old accepted theory’?

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...-of-brick-lane

This is very interesting. Possible he missed the signs of strangulation? Due to inexperience?

[Trevor Marriott]

The organs were clearly taken as indicated in the contemporary reports, why that happened would be a good line of questioning...but not disputing those facts to suggest this morgue theft nonsense. Why different methods were used suggests different people or different amounts of time available, the fact that they were not the same organs and that no medical expert claimed that the cutting in Mitre Square was to obtain her kidney, it was suggested about the Hanbury murderer.

The difference in methods and the actual organ taken are good areas for discussion, what is not productive in any way is to try and re-write police and medical expert testimony based on some non-linear concept without any substantive reason.

Even today police and medical testimony has been proven to be wrong, so it is equally wrong for you to say that testimony from 1888 should be readily accepted without question when there have been many examples quoted of them being just that wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

The organs were clearly taken as indicated in the contemporary reports, why that happened would be a good line of questioning...but not disputing those facts to suggest this morgue theft nonsense. Why different methods were used suggests different people or different amounts of time available, the fact that they were not the same organs and that no medical expert claimed that the cutting in Mitre Square was to obtain her kidney, it was suggested about the Hanbury murderer.

The difference in methods and the actual organ taken are good areas for discussion, what is not productive in any way is to try and re-write police and medical expert testimony based on some non-linear concept without any substantive reason.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;n781002]

Posted in error

[MrBarnett]

There is more to this than simply the medical evidence you are just looking for any excuse not to accept the reality of these murders

doesnt matter how long anyone has studied the murders it how the facts and the evidence is interpreted and you clearly want to accept the old accepted theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not all, Trevor, questioning your old unaccepted theory doesn’t give any clue as to what theory/theories I may lean towards.

If anything, by bringing Tabram into the Ripper’s body count you are the one who is going with the flow. I lean towards her not being a Ripper victim and have my own person of interest, a blind, vicious, mentally unstable seller of laces who went on to marry Pearly Poll. Although blind, he was apparently a wood carver and may well have carried a collection of bladed implements on his person. What do you know about him? Anything - or are you stuck in your old unnaccepted groove and unwilling to consider new ideas?

Having done a bit of research into Dr Killeen, the thing that stands out for me is how inexperienced he was. He’d only just qualified in Dublin and it’s possible that Tabram’s was the first PM he had ever carried out. He may never have seen a stab wound previously. So the multiple weapon idea has to be treated with caution.

‘Old accepted theory’?

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-medical-men-inquest-doctor-reports/dr-timothy-killeen/34582-dr-killeen-of-brick-lane

[FISHY1118]

There is more to this than simply the medical evidence you are just looking for any excuse not to accept the reality of these murders

doesnt matter how long anyone has studied the murders it how the facts and the evidence is interpreted and you clearly want to accept the old accepted theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

""Reality of these murders "" , your theory has many flaws which have already been discussed at length and found to be wanting.. You make it sound like what you describe is exactly what happened , !! perhaps one reason he didnt take kellys organs with him was he had so much time to do what he wanted with them ,look at , played with, display them all over the room ,around her body , who the " f " knows . I dont give a toss , all i know is he could have taken them out with anatomical knowledge and then gutted her like a fish after removing them , , Just because the dr Bond didnt mention A .K at the inquest doesn't mean there wasnt any ,by the time kellys murder was done and such was the lack of details at her inquest compared to the other victims, they probably didnt care to mention that which my seemed obvious at the time, given her mutilated corpse. There are too many variables like ive described also in eddowes and chapman which makes your theory in the very ""extremely unlikely category"" . The end

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, but he is a FRCS and he has been studying the Whitechapel murders for decades. How does that compare to your gynaecologist?

There is more to this than simply the medical evidence you are just looking for any excuse not to accept the reality of these murders

doesnt matter how long anyone has studied the murders it how the facts and the evidence is interpreted and you clearly want to accept the old accepted theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Well thats different to the CV I found he must have been qualified many years ago because he is not practising surgery now, but it still academic nothing changes you believe what you want to belive. I will let the facts speak for themsleves and everyone has a choice.

I am disappointed that you cannot see the flaws in all the old accepted facts that suggest the killer of these women was resposnible for removing their organs at the crime scenes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, but he is a FRCS and he has been studying the Whitechapel murders for decades. How does that compare to your gynaecologist?

[Trevor Marriott]

Wynne Weston-Davies, MRCS, LRCP, MB BS, FRCS, ECFMG…?

Well thats different to the CV I found he must have been qualified many years ago because he is not practising surgery now, but it still academic nothing changes you believe what you want to belive. I will let the facts speak for themsleves and everyone has a choice.

I am disappointed that you cannot see the flaws in all the old accepted facts that suggest the killer of these women was resposnible for removing their organs at the crime scenes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

He only had the opportunity to remove the organs of 3 of the victims. The two who were killed on the street in a rush had them missing, the one with whom he had plenty of time to satisfy his cravings didn’t. (Assuming the heart wasn’t missing as WWD believes it was.)

If WWD has no issue with Eddowes killer having removed her kidney, you shouldn’t either - unless you have a theory that you wish to protect from professional opinions.

But what if you include Tabram,McKenzie and Coles they never had any organs taken so on top of that we have Stride, Nichols who also never had any organs taken from them despite the killer killing some of them on deserted streets in the middle of the night.

And on that note there are those who postulate that the killer of Eddowes did all that he is alleged to have done in under 5 mins. Did the killer of all those above victims have at least 5 mins or less with each of them?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

WWD does not have the medical qualifications to give that opinion you should check out his cv

I have set out clearly and concisely many times the reasons why I believe the organs were not removed by the killer from Chapman and Eddowes.

WWD clearly has not carefully studied all the facts, and all the evidence appertaining to those murders, and in particular the direct evidential link to Mary Kellys murder from those two murders which additionally supports my belief. Perhaps you should contact him and ask him to consider the facts and the evidence I seek to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wynne Weston-Davies, MRCS, LRCP, MB BS, FRCS, ECFMG…?

[Trevor Marriott]

He only had the opportunity to remove the organs of 3 of the victims. The two who were killed on the street in a rush had them missing, the one with whom he had plenty of time to satisfy his cravings didn’t. (Assuming the heart wasn’t missing as WWD believes it was.)

If WWD has no issue with Eddowes killer having removed her kidney, you shouldn’t either - unless you have a theory that you wish to protect from professional opinions.

WWD does not have the medical qualifications to give that opinion you should check out his cv

I have set out clearly and concisely many times the reasons why I believe the organs were not removed by the killer from Chapman and Eddowes.

WWD clearly has not carefully studied all the facts, and all the evidence appertaining to those murders, and in particular the direct evidential link to Mary Kellys murder from those two murders which additionally supports my belief. Perhaps you should contact him and ask him to consider the facts and the evidence I seek to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

But the deciding factor is the two differnet methods of the extraction of the organs from Eddowes and Chapman from two different mortuaries which, must point to two different persons that is unexplainable, other than what i have sugested that the organs were not taken by the killer at the crime scenes otherwise he would have adopted the same procedure for both.

Not withstanding the fact that in the case of Eddowes if one of the killler motives were organs harvesting he went about it the wrong way by stabbing her in the abdomen with the liklhihood of damaging any organs he was looking to harvest.

No matter how you or others butter it up the belief that the killer removed these organs at the crime scenes is becoming more and more questionable as the real facts unfold. There is nothing in the evidence to support the belief that the killer was harvesting organs from these victims when out of all the victims Chapman and Eddowes were missing organs but that was after their bodies had beem left at the mortuary for up to 12 hours, We see no attempt with the other victims.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He only had the opportunity to remove the organs of 3 of the victims. The two who were killed on the street in a rush had them missing, the one with whom he had plenty of time to satisfy his cravings didn’t. (Assuming the heart wasn’t missing as WWD believes it was.)

If WWD has no issue with Eddowes killer having removed her kidney, you shouldn’t either - unless you have a theory that you wish to protect from professional opinions.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Or the killer did what he did to kelly cut.tore the intestines out

Two experts, two completely different opinions.

Another medical analysis

.The post-mortem report states that about 2 feet of the colon was removed. If the colon was removed from the left-hand side of the transverse colon and the descending colon, access to the kidney is somewhat easier. To remove the kidney from its membrane as is documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge.

But the deciding factor is the two differnet methods of the extraction of the organs from Eddowes and Chapman from two different mortuaries which, must point to two different persons that is unexplainable, other than what i have sugested that the organs were not taken by the killer at the crime scenes otherwise he would have adopted the same procedure for both.

Not withstanding the fact that in the case of Eddowes if one of the killler motives were organs harvesting he went about it the wrong way by stabbing her in the abdomen with the liklhihood of damaging any organs he was looking to harvest.

No matter how you or others butter it up the belief that the killer removed these organs at the crime scenes is becoming more and more questionable as the real facts unfold. There is nothing in the evidence to support the belief that the killer was harvesting organs from these victims when out of all the victims Chapman and Eddowes were missing organs but that was after their bodies had beem left at the mortuary for up to 12 hours, We see no attempt with the other victims.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk