Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[lynn cates]

change

Hello David. Thanks.

Change? I? It is nae possible.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

If the average three step length is 54 inches,

You lost me with that suggestion... please take a look at the photo below, there was only two steps.
Ignore the red outline, that was from a previous discussion, but it does represent roughly where I think the body lay.

[Errata]

You lost me with that suggestion... please take a look at the photo below, there was only two steps.
Ignore the red outline, that was from a previous discussion, but it does represent roughly where I think the body lay.

Are you sure that photo is accurate? It doesn't remotely correspond with descriptions given by police and witnesses. The photo appears to be from about the 20s, which would certainly mean significant changes in the yard would have taken place. Including a new fence closer to the door, raised yard level as evidenced by the broken concrete, and probably the disappearance of the lowest step. But this is what they said at the time. The bold statements give us a sense of space and measurement.

John Davies - "There was a little recess on the left. From the steps to the fence is about 3 ft. There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage. Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the lefthand recess, between the stone steps and the fence. She was on her back, with her head towards the house and her legs towards the wood shed."

James Kent - "James Green and I went together to 29, Hanbury-street, and on going through the passage, standing on the top of the back door steps, I saw a woman lying in the yard between the steps and the partition between the yard and the next. Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall. The feet were lying towards the back of Bayley's premises."

Joseph Chandler - "I saw the body of a woman lying on the ground on her back. Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them."

The Jury - The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

George Baxter Phillips - "I found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage. The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard."

Some of this stuff is unclear. Six inches in from of the level of the bottom step is actually a nonsense statement. I don't even know what he meant by level. Is it not a term used in steps. Not even back then. The level of the bottom step should correspond only with it's height above the ground. So how she could be in front of the height of the step above the ground?

Ad then of course there are some conflicts. Some witnesses clearly say she was in the recess. Some say at the bottom of the steps. But while people can be mistaken, blood evidence doesn't lie. Aside from the transfer evidence on the fence, there were patches on the back wall. Some as big as a coin. Blood is pretty heavy, so large drops of it don't fly far. Almost never more than two feet unless something like an axe or a broadsword is involved. So we are left with one of two conclusions. Either he jammed himself into that small space and transferred the blood to the back wall, or she was pretty close to the wall.

The revealing statement to me about her positioning is during the testimony of Chandler, when the conclusion was made that Richardson might not have seen the body because of the way the door opened. Because the open door only blocks the view of the recess between the steps and the fence, that is where her body had to be. It doesn't matter whether Richardson was doing what he said he did, the conclusion was that with the door open she would not have been seen if a person did not go down into the yard. And given that conclusion, she had to be where the door would obstruct her and that means between the steps and the fence.

[lynn cates]

geometry

Hello Errata. I wonder if those witnesses referred to the recess made by fence and steps? It does not seem large enough to accommodate more than the head. But if her attacker had tried to lay her down with only the head beyond the steps, surely he would have scraped his left arm on the lower step?

Also, three steps may include the top floor part?

Finally, by "level," perhaps the doctor meany only "its location"?

The geometry of the yard seems rather unforgiving for interpretations which have Annie much closer to the back wall than in the photo.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Are you sure that photo is accurate? It doesn't remotely correspond with descriptions given by police and witnesses. The photo appears to be from about the 20s, which would certainly mean significant changes in the yard would have taken place.
Including a new fence closer to the door, raised yard level as evidenced by the broken concrete, and probably the disappearance of the lowest step.

Raise the level of the yard? - to what end?
This is the East End afterall, I can't imagine anyone wasting money raising a yard when the house is in such a sorry state

The Fence is undoubtedly newer, but the property line never changes, so it will be on the same spot.
As Lynn pointed out, there are three steps, all the more noticeable if you look back at the door from the yard (as in the photo). You do step down three times to end up in the yard.
I took Dr Phillips opinion as the most reliable, as would the police, especially as the opinions of layperson's often conflict.

As to your hi-lights in the quotes, I think what you are experiencing is the all too common inadequacy of the proverbial "eye-witness" account.

[Errata]

Raise the level of the yard? - to what end?
This is the East End afterall, I can't imagine anyone wasting money raising a yard when the house is in such a sorry state

The Fence is undoubtedly newer, but the property line never changes, so it will be on the same spot.
As Lynn pointed out, there are three steps, all the more noticeable if you look back at the door from the yard (as in the photo). You do step down three times to end up in the yard.
I took Dr Phillips opinion as the most reliable, as would the police, especially as the opinions of layperson's often conflict.

As to your hi-lights in the quotes, I think what you are experiencing is the all too common inadequacy of the proverbial "eye-witness" account.

The property line isn't an issue with buildings such as these. Someone owns that block of buildings. The individual unit property lines change all the time. Which I have experienced when I lost about three feet of yard to my neighbor when the condo association replaced the rotting fence between us.

As for raising the level of the yard, it's actually pretty common. It's not that people do it on purpose, but installing plumbing or drainage or putting down concrete can raise the level of the yard by as much as four inches. I mean why haul the extra dirt away when you could just spread it around?

And while I understand the unreliability of eyewitness statements, the statement concerning the door was made during the police testimony. The jury and the coroner presumably had either photos or drawings of the crime scene. Their conclusion, that was not refuted by the police officer or the coroner was that a guy sitting on the steps with the door open would not see the body unless he actually entered the yard. And this is not a big yard. If the door was the major obstacle to viewing the body, and the people who had seen the actual scene said it was, where else could the body be? Not that the recess is the best place to leave the body, but it is the only place the door obstructs. In your illustration, only a colossal idiot would claim that the door would obstruct the view of the body. And unless all parties involved in that discussion were grossly incompetent, I think it's fair to say that the photo does not represent the dimensions of the yard at the time.

Do we know the provenance of the photo? Who took it? It's clearly taken quite some time after the crimes, as far as advancements in photography go in could be as late as the fifties. Do we know it's not the yard next door? Or a picture of a place that looked like what 29 Hanbury looked like at that time? I'm not in any way suggesting dishonesty, but we had a photo of the original capitol building in the newer capitol building here for like fifty years or so, turns out the photo was the house of the daughter of a major plantation owner. But it totally looked like a capitol building, and the actual original capitol building was pretty unimpressive, so it was an honest mistake. But whether it is or is not 29 Hanbury, the scenery has clearly changed. I bet the fence was originally lined up with the next door window frame. And got quite a bit taller.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. I wonder if those witnesses referred to the recess made by fence and steps? It does not seem large enough to accommodate more than the head. But if her attacker had tried to lay her down with only the head beyond the steps, surely he would have scraped his left arm on the lower step?

Also, three steps may include the top floor part?

Finally, by "level," perhaps the doctor meany only "its location"?

The geometry of the yard seems rather unforgiving for interpretations which have Annie much closer to the back wall than in the photo.

Cheers.
LC

I think the recess was quite a bit bigger at one time. Not big, but bigger. And I actually don't think he laid her down. If he did, he picked a hell of an awkward spot. I think she just dropped there and he didn't drag her to a more convenient place.

Three steps never includes either landing. I mean, certainly never in any kind of common usage, so if they were counting the landing and saying three steps, surely someone would have mentioned "don't you mean two steps?" I mean, someone could say it but thy would never be understood.

Level is just an odd word to use. If I were to guess, I would say that he said level only because at that moment he couldn't come up with the word he wanted to use.

I think the dimensions of the yard in the photo are skewed by transformation over time. Theres a classic photo out thee somewhere of depression era Louisiana. It's actually my grandfathers old house. They are standing in front of the house, all 19 of them or whatever, with a water pump on the left side of the walkway to the porch. There is another photo 20 years later, same house, same people, but the water pump has moved to the right of the walkway, and has plowed through the pavement. Now Louisiana is notorious for being shifty. Stuff just doesn't stay put a a rule. But even when people don't have the wretched foresight to build on a swamp (which Londoners kind of did) stuff moves.

But think on this. The door does not hit the fence. Well, it might have started to in this photo, but the door does swing wide open. And a spec door is three feet wide. So the photo may have a series of optical illusions that conspire to make the space look smaller that it actually is. I am not a small woman by any stretch of the imagination. I have very broad shoulders for a woman. And I get through door frames with room to spare. Essentially if the door opens 180 degrees, you are looking at a recess the size of a door frame. Plenty wide enough to fit a body, but not so much room to work in.

[lynn cates]

broad agreement

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"I think the recess was quite a bit bigger at one time. Not big, but bigger.'

OK. Why do you think this?

"And I actually don't think he laid her down. If he did, he picked a hell of an awkward spot. I think she just dropped there and he didn't drag her to a more convenient place."

In my humble opinion, he did not PICK anything. Their encounter merely happened there.

"Three steps never includes either landing. I mean, certainly never in any kind of common usage, so if they were counting the landing and saying three steps, surely someone would have mentioned "don't you mean two steps?" I mean, someone could say it but they would never be understood."

I can agree here. But it seems rather obvious that this is what happened.

"Level is just an odd word to use."

It is indeed.

"If I were to guess, I would say that he said level only because at that moment he couldn't come up with the word he wanted to use."

Tend to agree.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Do we know the provenance of the photo? Who took it? It's clearly taken quite some time after the crimes, as far as advancements in photography go in could be as late as the fifties. Do we know it's not the yard next door? Or a picture of a place that looked like what 29 Hanbury looked like at that time?...

There's a series of photo's available, I can't recall the source at the moment but the source has been identified. This yard was filmed in 1967 as part of the The London Nobody Knows, with James Mason. These photo's appear to be consistent with shots taken from the film.

Level is just an odd word to use. If I were to guess, I would say that he said level only because at that moment he couldn't come up with the word he wanted to use.

A plan of the yard appears to have been made available by Insp. Helson.
To say, "...in front of the level of the bottom step", is an indication the doctor was pointing to a plan of the yard.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"I think the recess was quite a bit bigger at one time. Not big, but bigger.'

OK. Why do you think this?

"And I actually don't think he laid her down. If he did, he picked a hell of an awkward spot. I think she just dropped there and he didn't drag her to a more convenient place."

In my humble opinion, he did not PICK anything. Their encounter merely happened there.

Cheers.
LC

I think the recess was a bit bigger because of door width. A standard door is three feet wide. And people generally install fences where the door doesn't bang into the fence. Which I think to be true because the neighbor noticed something hitting the fence, something he would not notice if the door banged against the fence all day and night whenever anyone went into the yard. And he seemed to have noticed it at the time it happened, not in retrospect.

And most stairs are the width of the door they are leading out of, at least in places where people don't spend extra money for decor. So I think the gap had to be three feet wide.

As far as her positioning, her feet would dictate how she fell. As in, when people fall down, their feet don't end up far from where they were when they were standing. If he had laid her down, even without dragging her, he could have laid her down parallel to the building. Or even with her feet towards the building and her head towards the shed. Which would have been much more convenient to him, given him more room to work. Or he could have dragged her to somewhere more convenient. But he didn't. I think she fell, and he did not control that fall, if he did, why not control it to his advantage?

In an ischemic attack, which anyone who has ever fainted from a head rush can tell you, you don't crumple. You stiffen up and fall like a tree that's been felled. I think she fell that way, stiff, hit the fence and sort of bounced off it into the gap. Which is still sort of lucky since she easily could have smashed herself against the stairs. But I don't think he lowered her down.

[lynn cates]

scuffle

Hello errata. Thanks.

"But I don't think he lowered her down."

Hard to see why not. They seemed to be having a scuffle, given her neck scratches. And that could account for the interval between "no," and her eventual bump of the fence.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

It seems to me that this thread is interested in whether Liz and Mary, at the least, were intentionally killed differently to throw off the scent, as it were.

One could also suggest that had the killer of Martha changed his stripes he might have evolved to the acts that were committed on Polly and Annie....in almost identical fashion.

The issue for me is ...why would he? Lets say one man killed the 2 women that were almost identically executed.....and he got away scot free after killing one woman literally in the street. Why does he need to "throw off the scent"...he didn't leave any. Why wouldn't he just continue to kill in that same successful manner until we see him later get caught with a woman or leaving a murder scene? Or a victim of suicide?

Why would the killer of Annie and Polly, which we can safely assume were indeed killed by the same killer, change what he does?

If you cant think of a good answer either, then how does that question then impact the murders that do not show the focus, the skill or the knowledge of those 2 murders?

That its likely Multiple men killed the Canonical Group, I would think.

Cheers

[Prosector]

Michael

Thomas Bond, the forensic pathologist to the Metropolitan Police, was certain that the canonical five were all the work of one man. He did the first and arguably the best criminal profile of Jack. I see no reason to disagree with him. The difference in the case of Liz Stride was because the killer was disturbed and botched the initial cut (' number one squealed a bit couldn’t finish straight off. ' - recognise it?). The difference in the case of MJK was that she was different. The killer had personal reasons for treating her as he did - or so I believe.

Prosector

[lynn cates]

"The name's Bond, Thomas Bond."

Hello Prosector.

How many of the bodies did Bond examine?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Prosector.

How many of the bodies did Bond examine?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
(sorry for this, but...)

We non-surgeons use abridged newspaper reports from the Inquests. Dr Bond, experienced surgeon, used the Autopsy notes.

Who is in a better position to judge?