|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
'Dr. Tumblety's collection'
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
'Dr. Tumblety's collection'
Author: Stan Russo
Sunday, 14 July 2002 - 10:56 pm |        | To all,
A theoretical question to pose about Dr. Frankie. He was said to have kept samples of women's uteri in jars and might have showed them at parties.
He took the uteri of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes, if he were the murderer, keeping them as a sort of trophy. Stride we can rationalize him not taking the uterus by one of two ways, he was interrupted, or he was not her killer.
What about Mary Ann Nichols? Despite no rush for time, her uterus was not taken. Why not?
And even more important, why did a man who collected the uteri of women leave the uterus of Mary Kelly in her room after removing it from her body? Dr. Bond's report says it was found, and they were able to prove that she was not pregnant from this.
STAN |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Sunday, 14 July 2002 - 11:39 pm | | Hi Stan:
I am of the opinion that not all of the canonical victims were killed by the same person, for several reasons. Furthermore, I am not convinced that Tumblety is the Ripper, much less a serial killer. It would be interesting to look back into the records and see how many female homicide victims in the US turned up minus the uterus, because I am certain that if there was a trail of such bodies, the press would have picked up on it. They certainly picked up on the Whitechapel murders! However, until I can document everything to back my statements up, I will refrain from posting a theory on the killer and victims.
But... the point you make is a large part of my reasoning that these women were not murdered by the same hand. The fact that Nichols was cut in the abdomen but did not have her uterus removed as the others did could be because:
1. It was not the same killer; her killer had no motive or reason for removing her uterus or,
2. He was interrupted, either by a passer-by, or he heard a noise and fled the scene, etc. This would explain why her abdomen was cut but her organs were undisturbed or,
3. This was an early stage of his killing spree, before he found the thrill of removing organs.
Please note: In fairness to those that are in favor of a Jill the Ripper, I am using "he" and "his" because the sex of the murderer is unknown. It is not meant to say that the murderer was definitely male.
As to Mary Kelly, the murderer certainly had time to remove the uterus and take it with him. If that was part of his MO, why wouldn't he take it with him in the case of Mary Kelly? I can only think of two reasons:
1. He forgot it or,
2. He was not the same person that murdered Chapman and Eddowes
If Tumblety was indeed the Ripper, and he did indeed kill all these women, wouldn't it be logical that he would have removed all the uteri and taken them with him?
Then again, the taking of human life without cause is, in itself, illogical...
I'm going to do some more research and post more at a later date.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 09:51 am | | Hi, Divia and Stan:
Stan, you said that in regard to the murder of Mary Ann Nichols: "Despite no rush for time, her uterus was not taken. Why not?" Stan, I don't agree that there was no rush for time. This murder was committed on an open street, a thoroughfare along which people were going to work at all hours of the night. Thus, ultimately, the victim was discovered by men going to work... and it could have been the oncoming footsteps of these men that caused the killer not to delve into her body to remove the uterus.
Stan, in regard to Dr. T's collection of women's uteri, we know that he had such a collection in the 1860's while he was in Washington, DC, per the recollection of Colonel Dunbar, but what about other times during his life? Moreover, as Jon Smyth and I have discussed, such an anatomical collection could have been just part of the windowdressing needed to bolster his claim that he was a legitimate doctor instead of the quack that he in truth was. This does not mean of course that he was not the Ripper and that he did not hate women, but that the anatomical specimens would have been a necessary and expected part of his trade anyway.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 12:15 pm | | Hello all,
Chris, I think that I will have to disagree with you about the lack of time during the Nichols murder or at least argue that if the killer did indeed kill in order to obtain the uteri of his victims then he took too long to go about it with Nichols.
My belief is that he had not yet reached a point where his fantasies forced him to take trophies when he murdered Polly Nichols. This was early days yet and he had not progressed, as these murders were certainly a progression of violence, to remove organs. If indeed he intended to remove the uterus from Nichols then he certainly wasted his time by making the several extraneous cuts to Nichols abdomen, cuts more in common with frenzy than with surgery.
As for the Chapman murder those who believe that the killer was harvesting internal organs can never seem to explain why the killer would also take a portion of Chapman's abdominal wall and two thirds of her bladder with him.
The Eddowes murder is even more questionable when looking at organ removal for if the murderer was actually intending to remove the uterus intact, he failed and yet he was able to successfully find and remove one of the kidneys. The mutilations to Eddowes face and some other superfluous cuts and stabs to the body and to some of the organs are also a worry that need to be explained when arguing for a doctor trolling for parts.
Stan.
Chris is right when he speaks of Tumblety and other quack doctors using organs in jars as part of their window dressing. Here is a passage that I posted some time ago from J. S. Le Fanu's classic ghost story, An Account of Some Strange Disturbances in Aungier Street first published in 1853. I repost it here because it offers us, I think, a small yet vivid look at the establishment of a ‘snake oil salesman' and is apropos to this discussion.
"...this old house of brick, wood, and mortar is...the humble recorder of this true tale....about two years subsequently to my story it was taken by a quack doctor, who called himself Baron Duhlstoerf, and filled the parlour windows with bottles of indescribable horrors preserved in brandy, and the newspapers with the usual grandiloquent and mendacious advertisements."
Wolf. |
Author: Stan Russo
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 12:34 pm | | Chris,
Thanks for your response. How's Old Baltimore?
Why wouldn't Tumblety have taken Mary Kelly's uterus then? The killer removed it but left it behind. If one of the reasons for believing that Dr. Tumblety was 'JTR' was because he kept specimens of uteri, whether to bolster his status as doctor or not, and the murders were committed because he hated women and wanted to remove them of their womanhood, i.e. their uteri, why not take Kelly's, as the killer had taken Chapman's and Eddowes'?
With regards to being interrupted in the Nichols murder, when the body was discovered by Charles Cross and Robert Paul, the body had been dead approximately thirty minutes, according to Dr. Llewellyn. With the medical expertise in quickly removing organs from his victims there would have been plenty of time for him to remove the uterus of Nichols.
Wolf,
This is a commonly held belief, that the murderer was in the early stages of his bloodlust, and the murders increased in severeity as his bloodlust increased. Then you can not be describing Dr. Tumblety as the murderer.
Dr. T did have a specimen jar of uteri as far back as the 1860's, possibly for the purpose of bolstering his status as a doctor. If in his insane mind the murders were committed because he wanted to kill and then steal their womanhood, i.e. their uterus, Dr. T would have been twenty years advanced in his insane state, having a specimen jar of women's uteri. It seems illogical to not go after Nichols uterus if that was his goal. Stating that he was in the early stages of his bloodlust does not work for certain suspects, especially Dr. Tumblety.
STAN |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 06:36 pm | | | Dear Folks: What are the odds that a guy who has a "thing" for uteri.(missing in the victims he had the time to "work" on.....),have a serious hatred of women/hookers...being in Whitechapel like Dr.T was...? Just an idea...The Eddowes/Chapman/Nicholls murders were not done by some knuckle-shuffling,babbling idiot....They served purpose for JtR.....What are the odds on the misanthropic Dr.T "just passin' through" at the same time?.... |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 11:19 pm | | Greetings, all!
I had taken the liberty to delve into the archives to catch up on some of the things discussed in the past, and came across some interesting points posted by a gynecologist.
1. If the intestines were lifted out and placed above the right shoulder, it would give the killer clear view of the kidney, the one that Eddowes was missing. The other would be more difficult to find.
2. The gynecologist had stated that - in his professional opinion - the uterus could be removed quite easily by feeling in the body cavity.
3. He also stated that if the uterus was diseased or scarred in some way, removal would have been more difficult. I don't have the exact quotes in front of me, this is all paraphrasing, but it makes sense. It would be more difficult to cut. I believe that he also stated that it would be very easy for the killer to remove part of the bladder along with the uterus.
I am going to look up the exact discussion and post a link for reference, as it was extremely informative.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 11:26 pm | | Greetings again:
http://forum.casebook.org/messages/1/1988.html?MondayJanuary1020000145pm
Sorry folks, I haven't figured out all this formatting thingy. I hope this helps; I found it extremely interesting to get some input from someone that has done a lot of hysterectomies. Also, I felt it unnecessary to retype everything when it has already been typed so perfectly and logically. Make sure that you read the entire string of discussion as more information follows later on.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 16 July 2002 - 08:25 am | | Hi All,
I've been wondering what others think about the likelihood that whoever attacked and mutilated Mary Kelly was committing murder for the very first time in his life.
We often talk about the murders appearing to evolve, or escalate, in a number of different ways, and the likelihood that such a killer had attacked women prior to Polly Nichols.
But surely, before anyone can safely think of excluding Mary Kelly as the ripper's ultimate victim, in order to keep their various organ collector theories afloat, they must consider and accept that her killer had never killed anyone before, yet succeeded in passing this crime off as the work of a serial killer who had rapidly been gaining recent hands-on experience with the local unfortunates.
As Stan asks, if MJK is included, why did the ripper take the heart and leave all the other organs behind? And if MJK is excluded, what made a copycat killer deviate from the crimes he was supposed to be copying by taking only the heart?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 16 July 2002 - 08:47 am | | Hi all,
Can I ask a question ?
This one is for all you Docs out there.....
.....Would it be easier to remove the Uterus rather than any other organ in the body cavity ?
What Im trying to get at is would is be more simple than a kidney or whatever.
Also, I believe, different organs have different colours so would it stand out to him?
Personally I think he took what he took, what was easiest to remove (hence my question) but what do I know ?
Monty
 |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 16 July 2002 - 09:34 am | | Hi Monty:
You will be as pleased as Punch to know that Dr. Thomas Ind has discussed the ease with which the killer was able to remove a uterus under "Casebook Message Boards: Miscellaneous: Medical / Forensic Discussions: JTR's Hysterectomies: Archive through January 10, 2000."
Therein, you will see that Dr. Ind, among other things, stated on 09 January 2000 - 06:19 pm:
"With respect to what anatomical knowledge is required, my feeling is that unless you are someone like me who accesses the pelvis every day, then the knowledge of other doctors, butchers etc on the most efficient way to remove a uterus would be so small and offer no additional advantage over a lay person in the dark. I think that JTR put his left hand into the pelvis, felt something round and hard and removed it with his right hand. Anyone who placed their hand deep into the pelvis could feel this lump (the uterus) and by feel remove it. However, they would damage the bladder and rectum which JTR did."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Tuesday, 16 July 2002 - 12:01 pm | | Hi Monty:
Your questions can be answered through the link I posted previously. It is the discussion string that Chris refers to.
Hi Caz:
Why, indeed? These are questions that I ponder every time I look at the Ripper case. My gut feeling (and it is only a feeling, which is why I do not post an entire theory) is that the Kelly murder seems more personal. It has the look and feel of pure animalistic emotion, whether that be anger, hatred, fear, etc. Which leads us to...
1. If Tumblety was the Ripper, and his main purpose was to collect uteri, he wouldn't be emotionally motivated. Or,
2. If Tumblety was the Ripper, and his main purpose was to act out on his hatred of women, the collection of uteri would be secondary. Or,
3. If Tumblety was the Ripper, and his main purpose was to remove their uteri because of his hatred of women, then either he didn't have time to remove them all or he forgot in the case of Kelly.
Which is more likely to you? My personal opinion is that there was more than one person committing the Whitechapel murders, and Jack the Ripper was only one of them. My personal opinion is that the collection of uteri was not the main purpose of Jack the Ripper, but a secondary motivation. And finally, my personal opinion is that Kelly and Stride were not Ripper victims. And though I understand why Tumblety is suspected, I personally am not convinced that he was the Ripper.
I have ordered some more books in order to delve further into the subject, mainly to pick a favorite suspect. This mystery will probably never be solved, but there is always a possibility of narrowing down the list.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 09:09 am | | Escallation?
No, those who gave their opinions at the scene of the murder of Nichols suggested the killer was interrupted and the medical evidence goes along in support of this assumption.
I cannot see escallation being a factor in 'one week', the killer goes from random cuts on Nichols abdomen to complete eviceration in one week?, no, not likely.
The random cuts, if thats what they were, are, in my opinion, the killers attempt to get at the abdomen protected (like a cage?) by the stays she was wearing, therefore the knife did not penetrate the abdomen as indended but left 'hit and miss' cuts giving the wrong impression.
The main difference between these two murders is 'time', evidently the killer had not allowed enough with Nichols but had an urgent need to complete what had been left undone. This opportunity came the very next weekend with Chapman, we do not see evidence of escallation here but better planning on the part of the killer, nothing more.
I cannot accept 'early days' as a reason for the lack of mutilation with Nichols and yet only one week later this same killer provides us with thee most 'professional' (Dr. Phillips) organ extraction in the whole series of murders. If ability (skill?) was a factor then the murder of Chapman is said to have been the peak of the series. Eddowes is less skilled and Kelly is just a random mess.
Also, I have never supported Dr Tumblety being Jack, but, I do make allowances for him possibly being 'the American Doctor', and if this is so then the police wanted him because they thought he knew something about the murders, which is very likely.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 02:47 pm | | I agree with everything on the previous post.
But if there were certainly not enough time (one week) and opportunity to gain in ripping skill between the murder of Nichols and the one of Chapman, it is hard to explain the regression of the same skill between Chapman and Eddowes.
It is obvious in fact that the aim was the same.
Cut open in the same abdominal vertical way with the removing of the intestine apparently looking for the extraction of the uterus.
Hardly the botched work in the Eddowes case could be explained by lack of time, "Jack" having enough time to remove the kidney and to play with the face.
Hardly also to explain it by the "stress on Jack" which could have been implied by the location.
In fact at first sight Mitre Square was a lot more secure than the back yard of Hanbury street where 17 people (not taking in consideration the 27 or 31) were just above the murder site at an hour (apparently) when looking out of the window or going to the back yard to alleviate could not have been such an improbable thing to happen.
Highly conjectural to explain it by the difference of light.
First you have to suppose Chapman was killed at 5.30 (not really the opinion of Dr Philips and the police) second you have to believe that light is necessary to remove a uterus.
Useless to remember Dr Ind (but all other doctor would agree) who clearly explained on these boards that the uterus is quite easy to remove without a lot of light since it would be the first "solid" thing on which you would stumb (?) across in a woman abdomen plunging your hands in it in a downward direction.
Annie Chapman was apparently a lot swollen and had some bruises on her face.
I wonder how credible could Long have been in recognizing her features at the mortuary.
But going back to the very strange and unlikely regression of our "Jack" between Chapman and Eddowes, I wonder why people have a lot of difficulty admitting it was the same scope but not the same hand.
Good bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Kelly was just a random mess.?
After all I do not agree with everything on the previous post.
I think Kelly was an orderly message.
And I do think Dr Bond's post-mortem is highly suspicious. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 03:16 pm | | Hi Graz.
"....it is hard to explain the regression of the same skill between Chapman and Eddowes."
Not a regression, the conditions were different.
With Chapman he was working in early morning light, with Eddowes he was working in subdued light and even though light enough it was obviously hardly comparable.
I think you dismiss the lighting issue too easily.
regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 08:04 am | | Yes, Jon, I dismiss light issue as a possible explanation of differences between the Chapman and Eddowes case (as I dismiss stress due to location and time) because, added to Dr Ind's explanation, it seems to me that "Jack" worked in a totally different way.
Yes, they were both ripped open and unfortunately we have not enough medical description concerning the Chapman case (I will not take in consideration the fact that Eddowes was open from the breast downwards and Chapman was reported by The Star to have been ripped from the groin upwards because the latter article seems to be not very reliable) but the technique to allow to reach the organs in the abdominal cavity is quite different indeed.
To clear the way (and probably to see better the interior) "Jack" does not hesitate in the Chapman case to remove entire pieces of the belly's wall thus creating some sort of an open hole in the abdomen.
In the Eddowes case he simply seems to split the abdomen in two and to stretch it open pulling the skin to the sides (quite clear in the drawings).
No try to remove pieces of flesh/fat covering the organs.
The same technique used in the Chapman case seems having been used with Mary Kelly.
Good Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Could we really says "Jack" could not perform as well in the Eddowes case as in the Chapman's by lack of light seeing how he was able to cut through the eyelids and to so precisely perform the "inverted Vs" on Eddowes' face ? |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 05:20 pm | | Jon, I was just wondering what exactly you mean by, "those who gave their opinions at the scene of the murder of Nichols suggested the killer was interrupted and the medical evidence goes along in support of this assumption." What part of the medial evidence would lead you to believe this? Dr. Llewellyn offered no opinion on it and it was only the Coroner, Baxter, on his summing up who mentioned that the killer might have been interrupted and only because he was linking the Nichols murder with the Chapman murder and the removal of Chapman's uterus.
Baxter believed that the motive for the Chapman death was that the killer wanted to obtain her uterus and if he had also murdered Nichols it must have been for the same reason. The fact that he hadn't obtained the uterus seemed to point, in his mind, to the conclusion that the killer might have been interrupted. Baxter also offered the caveat that he might be wrong about all this. All in all it shows a certain lack of Baxter's understanding of the sexual serial killer more than it answers the question of the motivations of one.
As for the other witnesses at the scene, the most important testimony must surely be that of Charles Cross who was first to come across the body. He stated that he neither heard nor saw anyone on Buck's Row, indeed he stated that, "had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him." So the idea of the killer being interrupted by Cross is in doubt.
I am afraid that you are incorrect in your, "hit and miss" theory of the cuts being caused by the stays that Nichols was wearing. Dr. Llewellyn states quite clearly that all the cuts were inflicted to the lower abdomen only. This is the area below the stays. Both Inspector Spratling and especially Detective Inspector Helson, corroborated this point by stating that none of the clothing was cut, including the stays, and that all the wounds were visible with the stays on. There is no evidence that the killer attempted to attack the upper abdomen as you have theorized.
The nature and extent of the wounds is interesting, the killer having disemboweled Nichols to some degree. This wound is described as: "...the abdomen had been cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of stomach,...the omentum, or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places..."
Although it could be argued that this wound might facilitate the removal of the uterus, it should be noted that it was not deep enough, only opening the omentum in some places, to have achieved this aim. The fact, however, should not be disregarded that this cut was an, apparently, unsuccessful attempt at evisceration. The killer did not just graduate from"random cuts" on Nichols to "complete evisceration" of Chapman in only one week, as you have stated. The killer graduated from random cuts and attempted evisceration, to, successful evisceration in one week which is, however you look at it, an escalation of the mutilations.
The question that has to be answered by anyone who wants to argue for Baxter's organ retrieval theory when viewing the Nichols murder, is why the killer would spend his precious time making, "...several incisions running across the abdomen," as well as, ...three or four similar cuts, running downwards, on the right side...," plus, "two small stabs on the private parts." These cuts seem to be extraneous and unnecessary to the extraction of internal organs and are more in line with the attack of a sexual serial killer, focusing on the private parts of his victim, rather than the budding merchant attempting to fill some imagined niche market.
Wolf. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 08:29 pm | | Hi Wolf.
You asked for clarification on what I said below...
"those who gave their opinions at the scene of the murder of Nichols suggested the killer was interrupted and the medical evidence goes along in support of this assumption."
Let me explain what draws me to that conclusion.
Dr. Llewellyn informed us of the extent of the wound to the throat, ie;
"...that incision completely severed all the tissue down to the vertebrae"
How long do we expect a persons heart to beat following such a severe laceration?
P.C. Neil informs us that when he came across the body the arm was quite warm, her eyes open and blood oozing from the throat.
George Cross tells us that the other man (Robert Paul) put his hand on her heart and said "I think she is breathing".
Strangely Robert Paul tells us that he did not think she was breathing but "he fancied he felt a slight movement" from her breast (inconsistant).
These statements are consistant with the crime being committed within seconds of the body being discovered. If the above statements are correct then blood will not ooze for long without pressure from a beating heart, hence my interpretation is the murderer was interrupted by the approach of Cross & Paul with barely seconds between her throat being cut and her body being discovered.
I do not find fault with Baxters suggestion that the killer was interrupted, a similar but more thorough murder the very next weekend is correctly suggestive of this conclusion.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 03:04 pm | | Jon,
you are suggesting (rightly so I think) "Jack" was disturbed and interrupted by Cross.
Since you seem to believe (once again rightly so I think seeing how he seems to have performed) that "Jack" was methodical, deliberate and systematic (and I would add quite cool-blooded), and since he did not finish his job, what could have prevented him from coming back to complete it, as Cross and Paul went away leaving the body alone ?
Or what could prevent us from thinking he did ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 05:33 pm | | Hi Jon, thanks for the reply. I see what you mean now, how you got from A to B, and I agree that this seems a logical conclusion based on the evidence that you have sited but allow me to point out some contrary bits of evidence.
First off, and the most important point, the wounds to Polly Nichols were so severe vis, "The windpipe, gullet and spinal cord being cut through..." also described as, "...throat cut nearly severing head from the body...", and not even taking into account the wounds to the lower abdomen, that it is impossible that she would have been alive when Cross and Paul, let alone Neil, found the body. She would have been dead in seconds, as you have stated, but you fail to realize that the time frame in your hypothesis would have to be judged in minutes.
Indeed, in order for your time frame to work the killer would have to have cut Nichols throat and mutilated her lower abdomen then ran away in roughly two to three seconds followed by Cross entering the street, walking up to the body, waiting for Paul to walk the forty yards to his side, the two of them then examining the body and leaving the street, all this in less than two to three seconds, followed immediately by P.C. Neil entering the street walking up to the body in less than two to three seconds in order to observe that she might have just been murdered seconds before.
Cross entered Buck's Row and neither saw nor heard anyone in the street let alone anyone fleeing from the body. He testified that he heard Paul about 40 yards behind him and walking towards him. Cross, who had not yet examined the body, waited for Paul to catch up to him as he stood in the street before he pointed out the woman and the before the two of them walked over to have a look.
If all of this, including the cutting of the throat and the mutilations to the body, took more than a few seconds, which it obviously did, then it is also obvious that both Cross and Paul were mistaken when they thought that she might still be alive when they examined her. The only way that they could have been correct is if they had stood right next to the killer while he cut her throat.
As for the blood P.C. Neil observed oozing from the body, it can do so for many minutes after death. You are confusing the actions of the heart pumping the blood from the wound, this is not what Neil observed, with the slow draining of the blood from the cut arteries which requires no action of the heart. I am afraid that all that can be claimed from this observation is that death had occurred less than fifteen to twenty minutes before he found the body, not that it had happened only seconds before.
Another point, and one that is not usually commented on, is evidence of strangulation in the Nichols murder. That her tongue was slightly abraded might be seen as a sign of strangulation but the absence of any arterial spray from the extensive wounds to the throat is more indicative of the action of the heart having been stopped before the throat was cut.
Although Dr. Llewellyn made no mention of strangulation in his inquest testimony, it is clear that he had noticed the lack of arterial spray and had attempted to account for its absence by postulating that the wounds to the lower abdomen had been committed first thus causing death before the throat was cut. Indeed, Llewellyn felt that the wounds to the lower abdomen alone would have caused "instantaneous death". The Corner, Baxter, disagreed with this postulation pointing out that there was much more bleeding from the neck than from the body.
It is very likely, therefore, that the killer had first strangled Polly Nichols to death before he had laid her down and performed first the wounds to the throat, then the quick mutilations to the lower abdomen. All this would have taken about a minute or less and so the killer could have been gone for at least ten to fifteen minutes before Cross found the body. I am afraid that there is no evidence that the killer was interrupted.
Wolf. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 08:42 pm | | Thankyou Wolf for presenting the testimony in somewhat of a sequential order. Whether we are talking seconds or minutes is rather immaterial considering the purpose was to try determine whether Nichols murderer was interrupted or not.
I thought by the end of your presentation you would arrive at the realization that the murders of Nichols & Chapman are unmistakably connected if only by the similarities of the medical evidence.
Both Nichols & Chapman may have been strangled, we are all aware of the possibility with Chapman but it is not always discussed with regards to Nichols. The abrasion (bite?) of the tongue and the "still tightly clenched hands", as noted by a East London Observer reporter, contrary to the report by PC Neil, are, I think, the only clues.
Both victims suffered from the same deep extensive lacerations to the throat, namely down to the spine.
Both victims suffered from the same extensive abdominal laceration, basically from lower abdomen to breastbone, typically, disembowelled.
The East London Observer reports, regarding Nichols, "Commencing from the lower portion of the abdomen, a terrible gash extended nearly as far as the diaphragm, a gash from which the bowels protruded."
E.L.O. 1 Sept. 1888.
The Star, Aug. 31st, 1888.
(Also Nichols)
"The knife....was jobbed [sic] into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upward, not once but twice. The first cut veered to the right, slitting up the groin, and passing over the left hip, but the second cut went straight upward, along the centre of the body, and, reaching to the breastbone."
You led me to believe that in your opinion the cuts were not deep enough, but not according to Dr. Llewellyn, "..the wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through", he goes on to describe "..three or four similar cuts running downwards on the right side"
Had the wound(s) not been deep there would hardly be any point in Dr Llewellyn thinking it necessary to return to the body to locate all the organs of the viscera, to assure himself that there were no missing organs. This he had to do following his initial post-mortem.
If the wounds were shallow then he would have not needed to investigate further. They were deep, and Llewellyn said so, deep enough to access the abdominal organs, Llewellyn felt they were deep enough that the organs may have been removed, he had to check to be sure.
The only outstanding difference between the two murders are the final missing organs, which the killer returned the very next weekend to duplicate his task in almost every respect, except this time he completed the job.
I cannot see how you can argue escallation when all the similarities are present except the missing organ, and so soon after the first attempt.
Time has to be the difference, not escallation.
Are you arguing that he was not depraved enough to remove the organ?
I think it shouts from the rooftops, with Nichols, that he simply didnt have the time.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 04:33 am | | ...or maybe the guts? In more ways than one?
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: James Wilson
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 09:29 pm | | Coroner W.E.Baxter in summing up at one inquest refers to an American doctor trying to purchase a uterus.Now this has to be taken as referance to Dr Tumbelty,it is improbable for anything else to even be contenplated.If you take what the coroner said as fact,Dr.T is not J.T.R. but is a customer of Jacks.Now if this were the case there would be no direct evidence linking Dr.T unless he was cought purchasing the organs.(in his collection he did have other organs than uteri).
So if this is,to some extent common knowledge the police would want question him about who he was going to buy them off.If the police did this several things could have happend;
1.Dr.T could have helped them maybe,but if he did he would be dropping himself in it.
or
2.Dr.T would stone walled the police,knowing fine well he was not the Ripper and therefor he had alibi's and he knew the police had nothing on him exept knowing the truth,which was only hearsay.
If as I think no.2 occurs,Dr.t would get spooked and skip town (as he did).The police like Littlechild said had nothing to hold him on in "connection" with the murders.
Its like this ; If you want someone i.e killed you would not hire anyone directly linked to yourself,you would or should hire an unknown contract killer for obvious reasons.This could explain different people using the same M/O to make money off organs and the top priced was a uterus or a heart.It could explain the masonic connection - Dr.T was a Free Mason and a Doctor
was American and mixed with middle class,all of which Jack at one time or another was supposed to be - exept this - Dr.T was not Jack but he did know him or them! |
Author: James Wilson
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 09:32 pm | | Can anyone tell me when it was and by whom it was discovered that Dr.Tumbelty had a collection of organs?
Pre/Post 1888 |
Author: James Wilson
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 09:36 pm | | | Stan as far as I was aware the coroners report on M Kelly is half missing and that the missing documents contain all relevent info on her uterus - thus the conspiracy she was killed because she was pregas. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 09:51 pm | | Hi, James:
Dr. Tumblety is said to have had his collection of organs in the 1860s when he was living in Washington, D.C., according to the recollection of Colonel C. A. Dunham, a Fairfield, New Jersey, lawyer (see Evans and Gainey, Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, p. 196). We have no information that Dr. Tumblety still owned such a collection circa 1888 around the time of the Whitechapel murders.
In the upcoming issue of Ripperologist, I have an article coming out in which I discuss information from a contemporary American newspaper. This information is to the effect that the man who had been going to British medical schools asking for uteri was a "reputable" American doctor from a certain U.S. city. While we do not have the physician's name (work is being done to identify him), this would seem to make it clear the gentleman could not have been Dr. Tumblety, who was regarded by the medical profession at large as a quack and a charlatan.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: James Wilson
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 10:15 pm | | | I read somewhere that over in the U.S.there are not many Tumbelty's.Have they no info,have they ever been approached ? |
|
|
|
|
