Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

[Darryl Kenyon]

"But Jack still attacked with a knife you have to pierce the flesh to make a cut."

So when I eat a steak I have to stab it before I cut it? Not sure you understand the difference between cutting and stabbing, they are profoundly different.

He took organs with him to do what he wanted. This ties in to that.

I guess getting genetic material evidence is a bit tricky 130 years later. Unless your Russell Edwards of course.

Son of Sam [ Berkowitz ] first used a knife then changed his MO to a gun.
Sutcliffe strangled one of his victims with some form of ligature instead of hitting them on the back of the head with a blunt instrument.
De Salvo raped some of his victims, yet killed others [ strangulation ].
Perhaps Jack didn't get the gratification he required by frenziedly stabbing Martha and moved on to cutting Polly open . And then moved further on to removing body parts from Annie . His choice of weapon a knife each time but with progression in what he sought.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Is it just possible that a dagger thrust through her sternum also pierced her heart?

I don't want to sound pedantic or anything Gary but the chest bone doesn't cover the heart
Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

I don't want to sound pedantic or anything Gary but the chest bone doesn't cover the heart
Regards Darryl

That doesn’t sound pedantic, Darryl…

[erobitha]

Son of Sam [ Berkowitz ] first used a knife then changed his MO to a gun.
Sutcliffe strangled one of his victims with some form of ligature instead of hitting them on the back of the head with a blunt instrument.
De Salvo raped some of his victims, yet killed others [ strangulation ].
Perhaps Jack didn't get the gratification he required by frenziedly stabbing Martha and moved on to cutting Polly open . And then moved further on to removing body parts from Annie . His choice of weapon a knife each time but with progression in what he sought.

Regards Darryl

The method changes all the times with killers - but the end goal does not. Always ask "why?"

The alleged mutilation of Martha Tabram is not the same as what happened to Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary Jane. You really need to understand what was it JtR actually wanted. If you all you believe his ambition was just to murder prostitutes by any means necessary and then stumbled upon post-mortem mutilation in the process, then you massively undervalue where his mind was at. Frenzy is anger. Cutting is power. Very different things.

His end goal was to "enjoy" the feel of the organs against skin as he cut through their abdomens and genitalia. He took pieces with him to "enjoy" at his leisure. The killing was always admin to get to this goal. Nothing about Tabram's murder was 'admin'. The goal was pure rage to kill. That was the end goal there. Not for the C5.

It is exactly why I do not believe Jack was a mortician or had easy access to dead bodies. It's the lack of opportunity combined with a general disdain towards prostitutes which drove him to target the women he did. A butcher or slauhghterman could easily do similar things with animals, and perhaps there is an argument to suggest a desire to esclatate to humans. That cannot be ruled out.

My belief is Polly is not the first, but Tabram was not the trigger victim.

Jack would not have been out of place with these monsters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripper_Crew

[Darryl Kenyon]

perhaps. seems to me, especially if this is a ripper murder,more likely that all tje wounds were when she was alive, the stab to the heart was the fatal blow, and then the cut to the privates was post mortem.

I am not a physician Abby but I wonder if Dr Killeen could tell that Martha was still alive while Jack inflicted all 38 wounds before the one on the heart. Would that be possible today? never mind 1888 .
Was he taken out of context at the inquest ? Not sure, but it does seem a strange statement to make .

From the ELO Aug 11 - Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made, and in answer to questions stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion. In his opinion the wounds were caused by a knife, or some such instrument, but there was a wound on the chest bone which could not have been caused by a knife. An ordinary penknife could have made most of the wounds, but the puncture in the chest must have been made with a sword bayonet or a dagger. The wounds, he was of the opinion, were inflicted during life, and it was impossible for them all to have been self-inflicted, though some of them might have been. Then in reply to questions from the coroner as to whether he could tell whether the wounds were made by a right or left-handed person, the doctor said one of the wounds might have been made by a left-handed man, but not the others.

All three [ in bold ], of the above seem a little odd to me.
For instance how could he tell that the wounds to the lungs were caused by a right handed man if just a penknife was used ?
Plus no one heard a noise , cry , anything.

Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

I am not a physician Abby but I wonder if Dr Killeen could tell that Martha was still alive while Jack inflicted all 38 wounds before the one on the heart. Would that be possible today? never mind 1888 .
Was he taken out of context at the inquest ? Not sure, but it does seem a strange statement to make .

From the ELO Aug 11 - Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made, and in answer to questions stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion. In his opinion the wounds were caused by a knife, or some such instrument, but there was a wound on the chest bone which could not have been caused by a knife. An ordinary penknife could have made most of the wounds, but the puncture in the chest must have been made with a sword bayonet or a dagger. The wounds, he was of the opinion, were inflicted during life, and it was impossible for them all to have been self-inflicted, though some of them might have been. Then in reply to questions from the coroner as to whether he could tell whether the wounds were made by a right or left-handed person, the doctor said one of the wounds might have been made by a left-handed man, but not the others.

All three [ in bold ], of the above seem a little odd to me.
For instance how could he tell that the wounds to the lungs were caused by a right handed man if just a penknife was used ?
Plus no one heard a noise , cry , anything.

Regards Darryl

The doctor’s name was Killeen - Timothy Robert Killeen. Just for the record.

In poor light, or with other reasons for reduced vision, locating the sternum is a good way of determining the position of the heart.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The method changes all the times with killers - but the end goal does not. Always ask "why?"

The alleged mutilation of Martha Tabram is not the same as what happened to Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary Jane. You really need to understand what was it JtR actually wanted. If you all you believe his ambition was just to murder prostitutes by any means necessary and then stumbled upon post-mortem mutilation in the process, then you massively undervalue where his mind was at. Frenzy is anger. Cutting is power. Very different things.

His end goal was to "enjoy" the feel of the organs against skin as he cut through their abdomens and genitalia. He took pieces with him to "enjoy" at his leisure. The killing was always admin to get to this goal. Nothing about Tabram's murder was 'admin'. The goal was pure rage to kill. That was the end goal there. Not for the C5.

It is exactly why I do not believe Jack was a mortician or had easy access to dead bodies. It's the lack of opportunity combined with a general disdain towards prostitutes which drove him to target the women he did. A butcher or slauhghterman could easily do similar things with animals, and perhaps there is an argument to suggest a desire to esclatate to humans. That cannot be ruled out.

My belief is Polly is not the first, but Tabram was not the trigger victim.

Jack would not have been out of place with these monsters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripper_Crew

There is the possibility that Jack on his first kill [ if indeed Martha was his first kill ], hadn't sought, or knew what he truly desired but that the thrill of a first kill was enough for now.
Its probable [ in my humble opinion ], that the C5 were not the only prostitutes he met that Autumn and in some cases he hadn't felt the urge to kill, or kill and mutilate. Much like De Salvo.
We should also consider Jack didn't set out to kill Martha but she angered him in some way and he took out his rage on her.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

The doctor’s name was Killeen - Timothy Robert Killeen. Just for the record.

In poor light, or with other reasons for reduced vision, locating the sternum is a good way of determining the position of the heart.

It was the ELO which called him Keeling, I just copied and pasted their report.

But Dr Killeen did a post mortem examination on Martha's body when I am sure the light would have been sufficent -
Witness had since made a post-mortem examination of the body. The left lung was penetrated in five places, and the right lung was penetrated in two places. The heart, which was rather fatty, was penetrated in one place, and that would be sufficient to cause death. The liver was healthy, but was penetrated in five places, the spleen was penetrated in two places, and the stomach, which was perfectly healthy, was penetrated in six places. The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone. His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, and that all of them were caused during life.

[MrBarnett]

It was the ELO which called him Keeling, I just copied and pasted their report.

But Dr Killeen did a post mortem examination on Martha's body when I am sure the light would have been sufficent -
Witness had since made a post-mortem examination of the body. The left lung was penetrated in five places, and the right lung was penetrated in two places. The heart, which was rather fatty, was penetrated in one place, and that would be sufficient to cause death. The liver was healthy, but was penetrated in five places, the spleen was penetrated in two places, and the stomach, which was perfectly healthy, was penetrated in six places. The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone. His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, and that all of them were caused during life.

The point I am making is that the attacker’s vision may have been restricted/impaired. Knowing that the heart lies behind the sternum would provide a useful method of locating it.

[MrBarnett]

The method changes all the times with killers - but the end goal does not. Always ask "why?"

The alleged mutilation of Martha Tabram is not the same as what happened to Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary Jane. You really need to understand what was it JtR actually wanted. If you all you believe his ambition was just to murder prostitutes by any means necessary and then stumbled upon post-mortem mutilation in the process, then you massively undervalue where his mind was at. Frenzy is anger. Cutting is power. Very different things.

His end goal was to "enjoy" the feel of the organs against skin as he cut through their abdomens and genitalia. He took pieces with him to "enjoy" at his leisure. The killing was always admin to get to this goal. Nothing about Tabram's murder was 'admin'. The goal was pure rage to kill. That was the end goal there. Not for the C5.

It is exactly why I do not believe Jack was a mortician or had easy access to dead bodies. It's the lack of opportunity combined with a general disdain towards prostitutes which drove him to target the women he did. A butcher or slauhghterman could easily do similar things with animals, and perhaps there is an argument to suggest a desire to esclatate to humans. That cannot be ruled out.

My belief is Polly is not the first, but Tabram was not the trigger victim.

Jack would not have been out of place with these monsters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripper_Crew

This makes sense to me. One thing I would qualify, though, is that reading about Tabram’s murder might have been a trigger.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The point I am making is that the attacker’s vision may have been restricted/impaired. Knowing that the heart lies behind the sternum would provide a useful method of locating it.

But then why all the other stab wounds ? some to the liver for instance . Perhaps he wanted to mutilate rather than just kill. But hadn't refined his technique yet.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

The method changes all the times with killers - but the end goal does not. Always ask "why?"

The alleged mutilation of Martha Tabram is not the same as what happened to Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary Jane. You really need to understand what was it JtR actually wanted. If you all you believe his ambition was just to murder prostitutes by any means necessary and then stumbled upon post-mortem mutilation in the process, then you massively undervalue where his mind was at. Frenzy is anger. Cutting is power. Very different things.

His end goal was to "enjoy" the feel of the organs against skin as he cut through their abdomens and genitalia. He took pieces with him to "enjoy" at his leisure. The killing was always admin to get to this goal. Nothing about Tabram's murder was 'admin'. The goal was pure rage to kill. That was the end goal there. Not for the C5.

It is exactly why I do not believe Jack was a mortician or had easy access to dead bodies. It's the lack of opportunity combined with a general disdain towards prostitutes which drove him to target the women he did. A butcher or slauhghterman could easily do similar things with animals, and perhaps there is an argument to suggest a desire to esclatate to humans. That cannot be ruled out.

My belief is Polly is not the first, but Tabram was not the trigger victim.

Jack would not have been out of place with these monsters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripper_Crew

Also, so Jack knew what he wanted right from the off and he didn't build up to it? He knew exactly how to silence Polly quickly , first go ? And he knew how to cut her open quickly and he knew , if he hadn't been disturbed that cutting out organs/sexual genitalia would be quite easy in the pitch black almost. Seems to me learning how to kill someone first and then learning how to use his weapon of choice would come first .

[MrBarnett]

Also, so Jack knew what he wanted right from the off and he didn't build up to it? He knew exactly how to silence Polly quickly , first go ? And he knew how to cut her open quickly and he knew , if he hadn't been disturbed that cutting out organs/sexual genitalia would be quite easy in the pitch black almost. Seems to me learning how to kill someone first and then learning how to use his weapon of choice would come first .

But he didn’t learn how to cut a throat on the GYB landing, did he? He learned that plunging a dagger into someone’s heart killed them almost instantly.

[Trevor Marriott]

But then why all the other stab wounds ? some to the liver for instance . Perhaps he wanted to mutilate rather than just kill. But hadn't refined his technique yet.

Regards Darryl

If you remove the killer taking away organs from the victims, you are left with just murder and mutilation only which is what is shown in all the murders and the common denominator in all the murders including Tabram, and the later ones of Coles and Mckenzie

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

If you remove the killer taking away organs from the victims, you are left with just murder and mutilation only which is what is shown in all the murders and the common denominator in all the murders including Tabram, and the later ones of Coles and Mckenzie

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What constitutes the mutilation in the Stride and Coles cases?