Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

[MrBarnett]

Is there any know reason why the source quoted by the PMG would be wrong given we know that organs were obtainable legally, I would guess they would not be giving then away for nothing, so the source quoted in the article must be from someone directly involved in that process and is clearly from one of the teaching hospitals who would need to acquire organs.

From my theoretical persepctive I dont belive it to be unsafe, there are no other articles which conflcit with that article to make it unsafe which is what we see from the inquest and witness testimonies regarding other issues. Furthermore we know that the teaching hospitals needed organs for teaching purposes. So how did they acquire them.

So it is right to suggest that the organs from Eddowes were taken away for medical research, whether that was legally or illegally is open to discussion. I would sugget you do some research of the activities of Victorian body dealers and their illegal working partnerships with mortuary attendants and how lucrative this business was.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Trevor, you keep telling us contemporary press reports are unsafe. This is the point at issue at the moment, the fact that you sneer at ‘researchers’ for giving cautious credence to contemporary press reports and yet you take those that support your theories at face value.

[Trevor Marriott]

My copy only contains Times reports of the Tabram inquest.

Then you have the wrong edition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Losmandris]

Yes, that’s plausible in my view. There are other possibilities, of course. The one that seems least plausible to me is the idea that Poll was the chosen agent of a shadowy group involving the Lords of Spitalfields, the police etc.

This sounds intriguing Mr Barnett. Are you able say some more on it? What is your reasoning?

[Aethelwulf]

Maybe? Again blow to the head 'could' be JtRs first attempts at perfecting his MO? Certainly a significant possibility in my view and certainly in keeping with other killers.

Did he maybe revert back to this early MO or a combination of tried and tested methods on his last victim? Blow to the head, strangulation, mutilation?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Trevor, you keep telling us contemporary press reports are unsafe. This is the point at issue at the moment, the fact that you sneer at ‘researchers’ for giving cautious credence to contemporary press reports and yet you take those that support your theories at face value.

cautious creedence you are the worst fro quoting newapaper article

Just to clarify unsafe is not to be defined as to totally disregard which is what you are implying my intepretation of unsafe is

I dont need that article to support my theory there is enough evidential facts and modern day expert medical opinions gathered to suggest that the organs were not removed by the killer at the crime scene

The PMG article simply corroborates the process for acquiring organs from the Anatomy Act and shows that organs were removed from dead bodies at mortuaries for medical research.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

This sounds intriguing Mr Barnett. Are you able say some more on it? What is your reasoning?

Dont encourage him

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Then you have the wrong edition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have an edition that contains the official inquest depositions presented at the Tabram inquest?

[Trevor Marriott]

You have an edition that contains the official inquest depositions presented at the Tabram inquest?

No, only as reported by the Times newspaper

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

At some point she received an injury to the head.

Why are we imagining a method of incapacitation (strangling) for which there is no medical evidence when there is medical evidence that supports her being incapacitated by a blow to head?

It feels like an attempt to make Tabram fit the series.

From the East London Observer Aug 11 - Police-constable T. Barrett, 226 H - a young constable who gave his evidence very intelligently - said: On Tuesday morning I was on duty at about a quarter to five, when my attention was called to George-yard-buildings by Reeves, the last witness. I followed him up the stairs, and found the deceased lying on her back. She was dead, but I at once sent for the doctor. The body was not moved by me or Reeves before the doctor came. I noticed that the hands were clenched, but that there was nothing in them. The clothes were turned up as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs were open.

Clenched hands, I believe is a strong sign of strangulation Gary.
And as Abby has pointed out, the clothes were turned up with the legs apart.

Also Dr Kileen - Upon opening the head he had found an effusion of blood between the scalp and the bone.
I believe this is the evidence of a blow to the head. But could this have not been done as the killer dropped Martha as he lowered her to the ground after he strangled her ? Just a thought.

And finally John Reeves - The hands of the deceased were clenched, but contained no hair or anything else; nor was there any blood coming from the mouth.
Now when someone is stabbed in the lungs when they are alive I believe that massive bleeding can occur from the mouth as you are coughing/breathing up blood.
Martha was stabbed seven times in the lungs , yet no blood from the mouth. Maybe I have got this wrong but that suggests to me any road that she was already dead when stabbed in the lungs. Martha could have already been dead by the time the killer stabbed her there by the other stab wounds or a blow to the head but she might just have been strangled first instead.

Regards Darryl

[Mark J D]

No, only as reported by the Times newspaper

Is that a joke?

Someone please tell me that's a joke...

M.

[MrBarnett]

From the East London Observer Aug 11 - Police-constable T. Barrett, 226 H - a young constable who gave his evidence very intelligently - said: On Tuesday morning I was on duty at about a quarter to five, when my attention was called to George-yard-buildings by Reeves, the last witness. I followed him up the stairs, and found the deceased lying on her back. She was dead, but I at once sent for the doctor. The body was not moved by me or Reeves before the doctor came. I noticed that the hands were clenched, but that there was nothing in them. The clothes were turned up as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs were open.

Clenched hands, I believe is a strong sign of strangulation Gary.
And as Abby has pointed out, the clothes were turned up with the legs apart.

Also Dr Kileen - Upon opening the head he had found an effusion of blood between the scalp and the bone.
I believe this is the evidence of a blow to the head. But could this have not been done as the killer dropped Martha as he lowered her to the ground after he strangled her ? Just a thought.

And finally John Reeves - The hands of the deceased were clenched, but contained no hair or anything else; nor was there any blood coming from the mouth.
Now when someone is stabbed in the lungs when they are alive I believe that massive bleeding can occur from the mouth as you are coughing/breathing up blood.
Martha was stabbed seven times in the lungs , yet no blood from the mouth. Maybe I have got this wrong but that suggests to me any road that she was already dead when stabbed in the lungs. Martha could have already been dead by the time the killer stabbed her there by the other stab wounds or a blow to the head but she might just have been strangled first instead.

Regards Darryl

Dr Killeen, who saw the body in situ and subsequently carried out the PM, was of the opinion that all of the wounds were inflicted while Martha was alive and that the wound to the heart would have been fatal.

[MrBarnett]

Is that a joke?

Someone please tell me that's a joke...

M.

Trevor is known for them. He’s got a great one about a lawnmower.

[Losmandris]

Did he maybe revert back to this early MO or a combination of tried and tested methods on his last victim? Blow to the head, strangulation, mutilation?

It is entirely possible. I think this is a dynamic killer. Its very easy to focus on specific elements of his overall MO to the exclusion of the fact that he likely evolved/homed his techniques as time went by. He had to start somewhere and for me that was with Martha Tabram. He was unable to dispatch her properly, panicked and ended up stabbing her multiple times. I see a person whose first priority was to subdue the victim first and then dispatch them applying knife to neck. In an attempt to be quiet as possible. He can then carry out post mortum injuries, which I suspect are his primary motive. The attempts on Martha Tabram were not entirely successful location is ok but the method of attack is not i.e. bashed head and possible strangulation were not effective neither was the stabs to the neck. This does not allow him to carry out his primary motive. So he changes it up for Polly Nichols i.e. effective strangulation and slash to the throat. He get the technique right but location does not give him enough time for his primary motive. MO/efficiency improves with Chapman, no noise, she is easily dispatched etc. but time still a factor. Things are not right with Stride, possibly she becomes suspicious, starts to struggle or he is disturbed. In her case he literally cuts and runs. Highly effective with Eddowes but time still a factor. In the murder of MJK he all boxes are ticked in relation to his MO.

Probably a few abortive attempts in between the murders, probably some none fatal attack pre Martha Tabram and before that possible killing/mutilation of animals.

[Losmandris]

Dr Killeen, who saw the body in situ and subsequently carried out the PM, was of the opinion that all of the wounds were inflicted while Martha was alive and that the wound to the heart would have been fatal.

Do you not think she would have made a hell of a lot of noise?

[Losmandris]

From the East London Observer Aug 11 - Police-constable T. Barrett, 226 H - a young constable who gave his evidence very intelligently - said: On Tuesday morning I was on duty at about a quarter to five, when my attention was called to George-yard-buildings by Reeves, the last witness. I followed him up the stairs, and found the deceased lying on her back. She was dead, but I at once sent for the doctor. The body was not moved by me or Reeves before the doctor came. I noticed that the hands were clenched, but that there was nothing in them. The clothes were turned up as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs were open.

Clenched hands, I believe is a strong sign of strangulation Gary.
And as Abby has pointed out, the clothes were turned up with the legs apart.

Also Dr Kileen - Upon opening the head he had found an effusion of blood between the scalp and the bone.
I believe this is the evidence of a blow to the head. But could this have not been done as the killer dropped Martha as he lowered her to the ground after he strangled her ? Just a thought.

And finally John Reeves - The hands of the deceased were clenched, but contained no hair or anything else; nor was there any blood coming from the mouth.
Now when someone is stabbed in the lungs when they are alive I believe that massive bleeding can occur from the mouth as you are coughing/breathing up blood.
Martha was stabbed seven times in the lungs , yet no blood from the mouth. Maybe I have got this wrong but that suggests to me any road that she was already dead when stabbed in the lungs. Martha could have already been dead by the time the killer stabbed her there by the other stab wounds or a blow to the head but she might just have been strangled first instead.

Regards Darryl

I really do wonder if there was something in this. Possibly she was not strangled enough or not effectively but at least an attempt was made. In later murder either more pressure was applied or the victims were strangled for longer. If it were a first attempt at rendering someone unconscious he simply may not have had a clear idea of either the length of time or pressure needed.

In a post mortum is Killeen really going to be looking for these kind of subtle clues when there are 39 obvious stab wounds? We know what was to come. To Killeen, maybe this was simply the murder of someone not many people will be too concerned about?