Was Tabram stabbed through her clothing?

[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?

[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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

But there was no anatomical knowledge shown by the killer of Kelly in removing those organs you refer to

DR Bonds report to Anderson

" In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals"

Yet we have evidence of the organs being removed from Chapman and Eddowes with anatomical knowledge

So I conclude that either Kelly was not killed by JTR, or she was and that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at the crime scenes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We know that the killer removed organs and placed them near the bodies of Chapman, Eddowes, and Stride.

Really?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I think you term of removed organs and placed them is ambiguous, the organs that you refer to were intestines which when the abdomen was ripped open, those intestines could have recoiled out of the abdomen giving the appearance of having been placed

I have attended crime scenes involving a single knife wound to someones abdomen and seen intestines protruding out of the abdomen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

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?

Why do you ask, Amelia? What's the interest underpinning the question?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think Tom argued that Killeen only raised the bayonet possibility after he heard some soldiers were suspects.

I reckon the bayonet question is not so important.

Of more importance is why he stated: 'it was some sort of dagger'.

He stated that because the stab went through the chest bone, and your ordinary knife couldn't do that.

That was his point, which led him to state that it was 'some sort of dagger'.

It has been argued that Dr Killeen was inexperienced, 24 and little more than a GP. I reckon that is irrelevant when it comes to a stab through the chest bone because it is widely accepted today, and in his age, that ordinary knives are not capable of that.

His point was that it must have been a certain sort of knife in order to penetrate the chest bone, suggesting a strong knife with a thicker spine and a stouter tip, and yes, that would include a bayonet; but in the end he stated 'some sort of dagger' and a bayonet was one only option when pressed.

The type of knife that Dr Killeen had in mind certainly would include military knives but it would also include butchers' knives, and of course daggers were easy to come by in Victorian London and so it doesn't preclude the average man on the street either.

All we know is that somebody had access to 'the sort of dagger' that could penetrate the chest bone: 'could have been a soldier, 'could have been a butcher, 'could have been some fella who bought it from a shop.

[GBinOz]

His point was that it must have been a certain sort of knife in order to penetrate the chest bone, suggesting a strong knife with a thicker spine and a stouter tip, and yes, that would include a bayonet; but in the end he stated 'some sort of dagger' and a bayonet was one only option when pressed.

Home Office Files A 49301 Series:
"Some of the wounds are so narrow that a bayonet WAS FIRST suspected as the murder weapon. BUT bayonet wounds are QUITE UNMISTAKABLE."

This seems to fit the bill:


It is a Liston amputation knife, long thought to be the weapon of choice of JtR.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But there was no anatomical knowledge shown by the killer of Kelly in removing those organs you refer to

DR Bonds report to Anderson

" In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals"

Yet we have evidence of the organs being removed from Chapman and Eddowes with anatomical knowledge

So I conclude that either Kelly was not killed by JTR, or she was and that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at the crime scenes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Whether the murderer possessed anatomical knowledge was a matter of opinion.

But the organs of three victims were removed, and those of the last victim could not have been removed in a mortuary.

If the murderer lacked sufficient anatomical knowledge to remove Chapman's and Eddowes' uteri, is it not remarkable that he then removed Kelly's uterus at all?

If the murderer lacked sufficient anatomical knowledge to remove Eddowes' kidney, is it not remarkable that he then removed Kelly's kidneys at all?

[Abby Normal]

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.

stride had no organs removed, or any mutilations. in fact she only had her throat. i beleive you meant to say Kelly?

[Trevor Marriott]

Whether the murderer possessed anatomical knowledge was a matter of opinion.

But the organs of three victims were removed, and those of the last victim could not have been removed in a mortuary.

If the murderer lacked sufficient anatomical knowledge to remove Chapman's and Eddowes' uteri, is it not remarkable that he then removed Kelly's uterus at all?

If the murderer lacked sufficient anatomical knowledge to remove Eddowes' kidney, is it not remarkable that he then removed Kelly's kidneys at all?

You are missing the point Insp Reid stated that the heart was not taken away, as to excising Kellys organs it would be fair to say that they were not removed with any anatomical knowledge. and that raises another issue if the killer did not take away any organs from Kelly when he had the chance to take not one but many organs and she was killed by the same killer as Chapman and Eddowes, then that fact alone adds more weight to the suggestion that the same killer did not remove the organs at the crime scene from Chapman and Eddowes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... and that raises another issue if the killer did not take away any organs from Kelly when he had the chance to ...

I think Reid was wrong about that.

My reading of the post-mortem is that the heart was missing not only from the body but from the room.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think Reid was wrong about that.

My reading of the post-mortem is that the heart was missing not only from the body but from the room.

Well he was head of Whitechapel CID he attended Millers Court so he was there and ought to have known

The post mortem report does not state it was missing from the room

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well he was head of Whitechapel CID he attended Millers Court so he was there and ought to have known

The post mortem report does not state it was missing from the room

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

My recollection is that not only was the heart reported to be absent, but the location of all the organs, with the exception of the heart, was provided.

[GBinOz]

From the autopsy:
The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.

The pericardium had been incised from below via access from the abdominal cavity. The heart was absent (had been removed) from the pericardium. This is an advanced surgical technique. A slash and grab would have taken the pericardium with the heart still enclosed. This has no bearing on whether the heart was absent from the room.

Cheers, George