Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

[JeffHamm]

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?

Shouldn't Eddowes read:
Catherine Eddowes (Golden Lane Mortuary - partial uterus* and kidney removed)? (*or some such description)

also, for Chapman, I believe part of her abdominal flesh was reported as missing, containing the navel I think.

- Jeff

[erobitha]

Shouldn't Eddowes read:
Catherine Eddowes (Golden Lane Mortuary - partial uterus* and kidney removed)? (*or some such description)

also, for Chapman, I believe part of her abdominal flesh was reported as missing, containing the navel I think.

- Jeff

I think Trevor may accuse you of being pedantic Jeff, but of course you are correct.

The point remains. Who and why would anyone harvest organs across various mortuaries? Makes no sense.

[MrBarnett]

If I understand it correctly, Trevor’s theory about organ harvesting is entirely plausible.

[JeffHamm]

I think Trevor may accuse you of being pedantic Jeff, but of course you are correct.

The point remains. Who and why would anyone harvest organs across various mortuaries? Makes no sense.

Hi erobitha,

I think where Trevor is sort of coming from is that he's pointing out that procedures in 1888 were no where near as well controlled as they are today. The reason why police contain a crime scene now, photo document everything as it is, and create complete, detailed, and pedantic notes for chain of custody, is because prior to this mistakes were made and evidence went missing (not in every case, obviously, but often enough that protocols have been put in place to reduce them). We can't be 100% positive that a mistake didn't occur, and some body part got left behind at the scene (lost under some boxes, eventually decayed to be unrecognizable, or eventually taken by animals, etc), or lost on the way (fell off the cart and went unnoticed), or misplaced at the mortuary, or was stolen, the last of which is what Trevor speculates specifically. And, in one sense I fully agree with him, there could be all sorts of mistakes that occurred that we only have the official record of - but since that official record was created using protocols and methods that over the years were shown to be error prone (relative to today), the systems have since been improved.

However, that being said, simply because we know procedures were far less controlled then doesn't mean there were such errors - only that we can't completely discount the possibility. So far all I've seen suggested is that "organ theft for sale on the black market" is offered as one possible idea about what such an error might look like, but I've seen no evidence put forth beyond that which establishes there was actually an error. Generally the argument boils down to whether or not there was enough time for Eddowes' killer to take out her uterus and kidney. Clearly there was enough time for him to take out her intestines, and to perform all the other mutilations, so all that is left is to botch the removal of the uterus, and to cut through a membrane and cut out the kidney. The latter suggests the offender was roughly familiar with where the kidneys would be located and probably needed little more than knowing what they felt like behind the fatty tissue and membrane that covers them. I don't see those two cuts adding an appreciable amount of time over and above what the killer must have had to perform everything else, while Trevor sees those two cuts and removals as requiring much more time and hence they become unlikely to have occurred at the crime scene. Given our different ideas about how much additional time would be required we have to agree to disagree.

Be that as it may, it is the additional time requirement that is the evidence Trevor offers to suggest there was a mistake and somehow the organs were present at the crime scene but due to the lax protocols of the day they were eventually documented as not present. He offers theft as the explanation for that mistake.

I, and others, are not convinced the evidence Trevor presents is sufficient to conclude there having been a mistake, and since the protocols were not guaranteed to produce mistakes, there is nothing to suggest there was a mistake that require explaining.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Here is the problem Trevor has , he so desperatley want P,C Neil to have lied or been mistaken about what time [or if at all] he past through Bucks Row at 3.15pm, so he can claim a different time of death than that of the ''Accepted Theory''

But he would gladly believe P.C Watkins inquest testemony which he clearly uses to show there wasn,t enough time to extract Eddowes organs in Mitre Square. 1, There is no evidence to suggest Neil lied or was mistaken ,2 In Dr Brown thought there was enough time for ''All'' the injuries to be done to Eddowes.

We shouldnt complicate this or try and suggest otherwise.

[JeffHamm]

Here is the problem Trevor has , he so desperatley want P,C Neil to have lied or been mistaken about what time [or if at all] he past through Bucks Row at 3.15pm, so he can claim a different time of death than that of the ''Accepted Theory''

But he would gladly believe P.C Watkins inquest testemony which he clearly uses to show there wasn,t enough time to extract Eddowes organs in Mitre Square. 1, There is no evidence to suggest Neil lied or was mistaken ,2 In Dr Brown thought there was enough time for ''All'' the injuries to be done to Eddowes.

We shouldnt complicate this or try and suggest otherwise.

Hi Fishy,

Due to the antagonistic nature of the discussions around many topics what is, at the core, good advice can come across poorly. Trevor is indeed entirely correct to caution any wholesale carving in stone the descriptions that have come down to us. We're dealing with outdated medical procedures, limited objective analysis, next to no documented crime scene details, no complete coverage of police interviews with people at the time (we don't even know what questions were asked, let alone what answers were given), and so forth. However, it seems unlikely that every bit of information that has been documented is, in fact, the polar opposite of what really happened. Organs were not removed, Eddowes was not wearing an apron, the police did not patrol when they said, and so forth. Sure, mistakes are indeed more likely in 1888 than now (even now things are not error free after all), but to insist everything therefore must be black if the police said white seems to me to be going too far.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

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?

A futher question might also be , if organ havesting was seen to be a away of making money , why did it cease after Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes ? if the murderer was indeed collecting organs why stop.?

[JeffHamm]

A futher question might also be , if organ havesting was seen to be a away of making money , why did it cease after Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes ? if the murderer was indeed collecting organs why stop.?

Nichols is not reported as having any organs missing. Kelly's heart appears to have been taken, but that reading is not universally accepted as the intended meaning of the autopsy comment that her heart was absent; it may just mean absent from the body. The argument usually goes that we also have a list of the organs found in the room, and where they were located, and her heart is not listed among those. We're left with either the heart was taken by her killer, or her heart was not listed when they documented the placement of the other organs. It might seem unbelievable that the latter could happen, but something like this could be argued to be the type of mistakes that the more primitive protocols of the day resulted in: They start gathering the removed flesh and organs. Then, a senior police member instructs them to make sure they document everything they find and where they found it. But, in the confusion at that point, because her heart has already been retrieved it doesn't get added to the list.

My problem is that would imply the heart did go to the mortuary, and therefore it would still have been examined and the results of that examination documented. However, the autopsy does not include an examination of the heart, it only indicates the heart was absent. Combined, the preponderance of the evidence points to her heart having been taken away from the crime scene; or to a third theft, this time not taking the uterus, or a kidney, but a heart. Apparently Trevor has some reason to believe theft of hearts from the morgue is unlikely, and so he argues the heart was not taken but that it simply was not documented as being present.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Not at the crime scene no [Nichols] But made as as reference they were removed at a later time and place .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

Due to the antagonistic nature of the discussions around many topics what is, at the core, good advice can come across poorly. Trevor is indeed entirely correct to caution any wholesale carving in stone the descriptions that have come down to us. We're dealing with outdated medical procedures, limited objective analysis, next to no documented crime scene details, no complete coverage of police interviews with people at the time (we don't even know what questions were asked, let alone what answers were given), and so forth. However, it seems unlikely that every bit of information that has been documented is, in fact, the polar opposite of what really happened. Organs were not removed, Eddowes was not wearing an apron, the police did not patrol when they said, and so forth. Sure, mistakes are indeed more likely in 1888 than now (even now things are not error free after all), but to insist everything therefore must be black if the police said white seems to me to be going too far.

- Jeff

Aside from all that Jeff, as i was merely showing, Trevor accepts one .p .c inquest testimony to prove a point, and another to say he was mistaken or he probably lied when challenged on his testimony . Thats just a contradiction that leads to a lack of credablity in my opinion . Wether the subject is JtR or humpty dumpty .Just sayin.

[JeffHamm]

Aside from all that Jeff, as i was merely showing, Trevor accepts one .p .c inquest testimony to prove a point, and another to say he was mistaken or he probably lied when challenged on his testimony . Thats just a contradiction that leads to a lack of credablity in my opinion . Wether the subject is JtR or humpty dumpty .Just sayin.

Fair enough, and yes, it does appear the conclusion is driving the explanation rather than evidence. Simply because it is possible a witness (in this case the various PC's) could be wrong doesn't mean that is evidence they are wrong.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Fair enough, and yes, it does appear the conclusion is driving the explanation rather than evidence. Simply because it is possible a witness (in this case the various PC's) could be wrong doesn't mean that is evidence they are wrong.

- Jeff

I guess thats the problem then isnt it ? , one seem to take what ever one wants from inquest testimony to suit whatever narrative one supports . How many different interprutations do we have on Long ,Cadoush , Lechmere ,Neil ,Watkins, Dr Brown , Dr Baxter and on and on it goes . We have a Lechmere thread thats got 5600 post on it for goodness sake ,50% of them are debating and still cant agree on what time he left home in the morning shissssh.

[JeffHamm]

I guess thats the problem then isnt it ? , one seem to take what ever one wants from inquest testimony to suit whatever narrative one supports . How many different interprutations do we have on Long ,Cadoush , Lechmere ,Neil ,Watkins, Dr Brown , Dr Baxter and on and on it goes . We have a Lechmere thread thats got 5600 post on it for goodness sake ,50% of them are debating and still cant agree on what time he left home in the morning shissssh.

Hi Fishy,

At the heart of it is the fact that 90% of the information we have to work with is witness testimony, and it is notoriously inexact and often error prone even when the witness is trying to be helpful and retell things as accurately as they can recall. Most of the key details, like what time Cross/Lechmere left home, are not things the person would have taken any special notice of at the time, by which I mean they would have no particular reason to note that as something to remember in detail later. Sure, heading to work might mean they noted the time and had to go, but it would be a detail easily forgotten. This information isn't something they need to remember until they later hear of the murder, by which point it's accuracy will be limited. In the Stride case, with so many club members who would be moving about, waiting for the men to return with the police, general anxiety and concern, particularly as by then there was rising fear in the community, will introduce adrenaline and that interferes with memories as well. It's not surprising the witness statements are confused, and difficult to piece together. But really, that's mostly what we have. The medical reports, when they've survived, are well below the technology of today, and the procedures would be considered inadequate, and some downright flawed (time of death by touch, for example). We have very sketchy, sometimes literally, idea of the crime scenes. Even the Kelly photo, an innovation for the police at the time, is difficult to make out the details. Basically, we have information that is simply inadequate to draw any firm decisive conclusion, so the best we can do is create rough outlines, and see what arrangement of the statements seem to result in most of them being "pretty close to the what was said", but there will almost always be one or two witnesses who just don't fit. That's to be expected, though, when dealing with multiple eye witnesses. Where much of the debate focuses is deciding on which of those witnesses are the ones which stand out as incorrect. Often, the deciding factor is the theory a person supports, but that's backwards. One has to try, if possible, justify why witness A might be seen as more reliable than witness B, and if that can be done (logically, and objectively - not simply because "it might be this one is right", but rather "the reasons this person should be believed are 1) 2) 3) etc). Then, once evaluating the collection of statements as best we can, then we look to see what story it tells. Personally, I don't think there's enough information to justify any suspect, and I'm more interested in just trying work out what happened (as the recreations and other such things I do probably make clear). But that's just my approach, and it takes all sorts to have an interesting discussion. It would be nice if we could disagree on interpretations without taking it personally; to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Sadly, we're human.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

At the heart of it is the fact that 90% of the information we have to work with is witness testimony, and it is notoriously inexact and often error prone even when the witness is trying to be helpful and retell things as accurately as they can recall. Most of the key details, like what time Cross/Lechmere left home, are not things the person would have taken any special notice of at the time, by which I mean they would have no particular reason to note that as something to remember in detail later. Sure, heading to work might mean they noted the time and had to go, but it would be a detail easily forgotten. This information isn't something they need to remember until they later hear of the murder, by which point it's accuracy will be limited. In the Stride case, with so many club members who would be moving about, waiting for the men to return with the police, general anxiety and concern, particularly as by then there was rising fear in the community, will introduce adrenaline and that interferes with memories as well. It's not surprising the witness statements are confused, and difficult to piece together. But really, that's mostly what we have. The medical reports, when they've survived, are well below the technology of today, and the procedures would be considered inadequate, and some downright flawed (time of death by touch, for example). We have very sketchy, sometimes literally, idea of the crime scenes. Even the Kelly photo, an innovation for the police at the time, is difficult to make out the details. Basically, we have information that is simply inadequate to draw any firm decisive conclusion, so the best we can do is create rough outlines, and see what arrangement of the statements seem to result in most of them being "pretty close to the what was said", but there will almost always be one or two witnesses who just don't fit. That's to be expected, though, when dealing with multiple eye witnesses. Where much of the debate focuses is deciding on which of those witnesses are the ones which stand out as incorrect. Often, the deciding factor is the theory a person supports, but that's backwards. One has to try, if possible, justify why witness A might be seen as more reliable than witness B, and if that can be done (logically, and objectively - not simply because "it might be this one is right", but rather "the reasons this person should be believed are 1) 2) 3) etc). Then, once evaluating the collection of statements as best we can, then we look to see what story it tells. Personally, I don't think there's enough information to justify any suspect, and I'm more interested in just trying work out what happened (as the recreations and other such things I do probably make clear). But that's just my approach, and it takes all sorts to have an interesting discussion. It would be nice if we could disagree on interpretations without taking it personally; to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Sadly, we're human.

- Jeff

[Losmandris]

Back to the thread. I have two questions. First, could Killeen got things wrong during the PM due to his inexperience? Second was the testimony of Pearly Poll a complete red herring (possibly even totally fabricated) and as such helped to remove the idea that Tabram was a victim of JtR?

Thoughts?