Was Tabram stabbed through her clothing?

[Fiver]

Thank you for your reply but it is full of conjecture.

I do not subscribe to the belief that the killer removed the organs and took them away, if that were his motive as I previously stated why would he mutilate the abdomens severing blood vessels and arteries making the abdomens fill up with blood and making it even more difficult to not only remove them but to locate them in the first instance, and remove them quickly with what was described as anatomical knowledge and in minutes in almost total darkness. it didn't happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We know that the killer removed organs and placed them near the bodies of Chapman, Eddowes, and Stride. Even though he had mutilated the abdomens, severing blood vessels and causing the abdomens to fill with blood.

Most of the organs removed from the body were not neatly excised. Organs were often stabbed or cut, in some cases cut in two.

The only question is did the killer take some of the organs that he had removed from his victims' blood filled abdomens with him. And that's not really a question, because the only logical explanation is that the killer did take the missing organs with him.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But not forgetting that Insp Reid later stated that no organs were taken from Kelly by the killer and no other police official stated that organs were taken.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor.

I deliberately avoided mentioning Kelly's heart for obvious reasons.

My point is that Kelly's kidney and uterus were excised, not taken away, by the murderer.

So the question is: if Chapman's and Eddowes' organs were removed at mortuaries, is it merely coincidental that the murderer too had an interest in excising kidneys and uteri?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for the clarification, George.

I cannot explain how the murderer could have done what was done to Eddowes in such little time.

I can, however, point to the following facts:

Kidneys were excised from both Eddowes and Kelly.

Uteri were excised from Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

In the case of Kelly, the excisions could not have been performed in a mortuary.

But not forgetting that Insp Reid later stated that no organs were taken from Kelly by the killer and no other police official stated that organs were taken.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI1,

My daughter thought that the injuries visited upon Chapman could have been achieved in the 15 minutes nominated by Phillips, as a minimum, due to the damage of the surrounding area of the abdomen. She told me that she had assisted many highly skilled surgeons conducting an abdominal hysterectomy, with the most advanced theatre conditions, who had accidentally nicked the bladder, and Eddowes bladder was intact. She did not believe that this procedure alone could have been performed in even 15 minutes, unassisted, in a crouching position, in the dark.

IMHO, we are given the choice of either Watkins not seeing the body at 12:30 (missed it, skiving off with Morris, whatever) or the organ removal taking place after the fact. JMO.

Cheers, George

P.S. We seem to have wandered off topic here - better return before it's noticed.

Thanks for the clarification, George.

I cannot explain how the murderer could have done what was done to Eddowes in such little time.

I can, however, point to the following facts:

Kidneys were excised from both Eddowes and Kelly.

Uteri were excised from Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

In the case of Kelly, the excisions could not have been performed in a mortuary.

[Abby Normal]

Long time Ripperologist, first time poster.


Martha Tabram was stabbed 39 times. Can anyone confirm where she was stabbed through her clothes?


We know from the Mitre Square photos and the Mitre Square sketch that for Kelly and Eddowes their clothing was ripped or pulled aside so Jack could complete his mutilations.

We know from the inquests of Chapman and Nichols that the clothing was pulled up to do the same:

John Davies - "The clothes were up to her groins."

Robert Paul - "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down."


But with Tabram it doesn't seem so clear. There is a note about the clothes at the inquest:

John S. Reeves - "The deceased's clothes were disarranged, as though she had had a struggle with some one."


Like it was for Nichols, the term "disarranged" was used, but unlike Nichols there is no hint that the clothes were disarranged "up" the body. Also, the wounds on Nichols were in her abdomen, which could be administered after lifting her dress. Tabram was stabbed 39 times, as high up the body as the heart. If she'd been unclothed all the way up, there'd be words like "ripped" or "unbuttoned" or "untied" used in the inquest, right?

Can anyone help? Did Victorians use the term "disarranged" to cover any amount of clothing removal?

hi and welcome!
im not sure if she was stabbed through the clothes, but her skirt was hiked up like the other victims. she was undoubtedly a ripper victim, as was probably millwood before her, which makes a reasonable escalation.

[GBinOz]

The 12:30 in my previous post should, obviously, have been 1:30.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I think we have had this conversation before!

As we are agreed that the murder in Hanbury Street took place sooner rather than later, with much less chance of the murderer being disturbed, and since George's daughter is not reported to have questioned whether the excision could have been performed under those conditions, why could not the murderer have performed it?

Hi PI1,

My daughter thought that the injuries visited upon Chapman could have been achieved in the 15 minutes nominated by Phillips, as a minimum, due to the damage of the surrounding area of the abdomen. She told me that she had assisted many highly skilled surgeons conducting an abdominal hysterectomy, with the most advanced theatre conditions, who had accidentally nicked the bladder, and Eddowes bladder was intact. She did not believe that this procedure alone could have been performed in even 15 minutes, unassisted, in a crouching position, in the dark.

IMHO, we are given the choice of either Watkins not seeing the body at 12:30 (missed it, skiving off with Morris, whatever) or the organ removal taking place after the fact. JMO.

Cheers, George

P.S. We seem to have wandered off topic here - better return before it's noticed.

[GBinOz]

They wouldn't, if the organs were removed at the two different mortuaries by tow different persons, this would explain the two different methods of the extraction of the organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

In the case of MJK, the removal of the heart from the pericardium via the abdomen was an advanced technique taught by Virchow. It was certainly not a slash and grab that might have been used by an amateur. IMO there is surgical knowledge present in the mutilations, the question being, as you suggest, was that surgical knowledge possessed by Jack, or by persons unknown after the event but prior to the autopsies.

The questions asked by the coroner at Chapman's inquest about whether the organs could have been lost in transit, his veiled question to Brown about the body parts black market ("[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.") and the fact that both Nichol's and Chapman's bodies had been stripped before the doctor arrived all raise questions in my mind as to whether there was more to the mutilations than is being ascribed.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

There's been a question over this bayonet as a weapon issue for some time.
I think Tom argued that Killeen only raised the bayonet possibility after he heard some soldiers were suspects.
The confusion comes in to play when we look at the style of sword-bayonet that was available in 1888.

Most bayonets that could be bought second-hand in the markets were the old spike bayonet (tri-angular), popular in the Napoleonic wars.
This one is the type from 1876-1895.


But, in 1887 the sword bayonet was shortened, and several types were used.



So now it is not so unreasonable that one of the above was the weapon used, the pointed end is very similar to the shape of a dagger.

What was standard-issue was the pen-knife, or more correctly pocket-knife. Every enlisted soldier was issued with one of these.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Seeing as all the suspects at the time were soldiers, and the pathologist suspected that some of the wounds had been inflicted with a bayonet, are there not grounds for suspecting an unidentified soldier?

Dr Killeen stated at the inquest that one wound was inflicted with some sort of dagger, and it was only when asked by the coroner whether or not it could have been a bayonet, that he said yes.

Furthermore, I think there is a home office document/note that suggests Dr Killeen may have changed his mind on that, something to the effect that a bayonet wound wouldn't have been mistaken for any other dagger/knife wound.

Apparently daggers weren't hard to come by in Victorian London and I suppose an unidentified soldier could have been the WM.

There were witnesses suggesting that Martha was alive long after the two soldiers had departed, but then we're back to how much faith we place in witnesses.

Take your pick really, too many gaps to be filled in to come up with a likely scenario that stands above the others.

Whether or not Martha was a WM victim is better indicated by the similarities in the murders, rather than by whether or not a soldier killed Martha (in my opinion).

[Lewis C]

Seeing as all the suspects at the time were soldiers, and the pathologist suspected that some of the wounds had been inflicted with a bayonet, are there not grounds for suspecting an unidentified soldier?

I would say yes there are, but part of the reason soldiers were suspected at the time is Pearly Poll's comments, and I think there's now reason to doubt Poll's credibility. Still, a policeman who was in the area at about the right time saw a soldier, and that alone is reason to consider that a soldier might be the perpetrator.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

They wouldn't, if the organs were removed at the two different mortuaries by tow different persons, this would explain the two different methods of the extraction of the organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think we have had this conversation before!

As we are agreed that the murder in Hanbury Street took place sooner rather than later, with much less chance of the murderer being disturbed, and since George's daughter is not reported to have questioned whether the excision could have been performed under those conditions, why could not the murderer have performed it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Folks first post so be kind. I probably like many go back and forth in my mind about Martha as a victim. As Fleetwood says ever killer does not commit every murder the same. Jack had to start somewhere yet it is hard to believe he went from 0 to 100 with no previous form. The reason I think probably not a victim is the issue of Pearly Poll and the soldiers unless she was a fantasist.

I think so too.

There seem to have been plenty of soldiers around that night, in particular a Grenadier who was loitering near to the scene of the murder possibly only minutes before it occurred.

He said he was waiting for a friend.

The pathologist suspected that two men were involved in the murder.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would two different perpetrators share the same interest in human uteri?

They wouldn't, if the organs were removed at the two different mortuaries by tow different persons, this would explain the two different methods of the extraction of the organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

She commented that the organ removals from Eddowes could not have been achieved in that time under those conditions. Her question was, are there any theories that these two mutilations were by different perpetrators.

Why would two different perpetrators share the same interest in human uteri?