Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

[Trevor Marriott]

Here is the problem Trevor has , he so desperatley want P,C Neil to have lied or been mistaken about what time [or if at all] he past through Bucks Row at 3.15pm, so he can claim a different time of death than that of the ''Accepted Theory''

But he would gladly believe P.C Watkins inquest testemony which he clearly uses to show there wasn,t enough time to extract Eddowes organs in Mitre Square. 1, There is no evidence to suggest Neil lied or was mistaken ,2 In Dr Brown thought there was enough time for ''All'' the injuries to be done to Eddowes.

We shouldnt complicate this or try and suggest otherwise.

The evidence relating to each murder has to be assesed and evaluated separatley to see if there is a common denominator or a link which links all the murders to one killer or differnet killers. The organ removal issue is not one of those links because not all the victims attributed to one killer had organs removed so why some and noty others I dont buy the sugestion that he was disturbed or didnt have time because at the times these murders were committed there were vrey few people out on the streets.

Drs Brown and Sequeria stated before the post mortems were carried out and before organs were found to be missing in a Star Interview which appeared in the final edition on Oct 1st

In that final edition, there are two interesting quotes, one from Dr Brown, and a second from Dr Sequeira. Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter “How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”.

As you found it is open to interpretation but given Sequerias time of three mins It has to be as i stated before the organs were found to be missing no one could do all that in three mins.,and Browns at least 5 mins is probably about right in the time line as we know it for simply murder and mutilation which is one of the common links to all the victims.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

The simple and supportable response would be No, JtR did not change anything after Martha... because he didnt kill her. Jack the Ripper was not a pen knife stabber...perhaps the Bury fans might have better luck linking this with someone.

[Aethelwulf]

If we discount the soldiers, and this is feasible as there seems to have been an hour and a half between the last sighting of them and finding the body, Bury is clearly the prime suspect for this:

• Used same MO on his wife (blow to the head, strangulation, penknife)
• Committed a murder with a penknife in the early hours of the morning
• Pocket knife and penknife amongst his possessions; slept with one under his pillow
• Used prostitutes
• Caught an STD, undoubtedly from a prostitute
• Drank in Whitechapel, abused wife in Whitechapel
• Misogynist
• Capable of totally unprovoked brutality against women
• If we consider Tabram was stabbed in the neck, this is the same as Ada Wilson, one mile from Bury’s home under circumstances (demanding money with menaces) that he used on his wife - by a man fitting Bury's description
• Also stab to the genitals on Tabram; Bury mutilated his wife’s genitals
• Fits FBI profile of the killer in virtually every respect

I can imagine someone as petty and violent as Bury seeking retribution for his STD, perhaps he thought he caught it from Tabram

If you consider Tabram a ripper victim, as Keppel et al do, there is no mystery here (although I do like the blind wood turner theory)

There is no other suspect worth considering for this attack

[FISHY1118]

The simple and supportable response would be No, JtR did not change anything after Martha... because he didnt kill her. Jack the Ripper was not a pen knife stabber...perhaps the Bury fans might have better luck linking this with someone.

So do you think Nichols was the first and Kelly the last ? Just curious.

[Mark J D]

... Kelly's heart appears to have been taken, but that reading is not universally accepted as the intended meaning of the autopsy comment that her heart was absent; it may just mean absent from the body...

Hi Jeff,

When that same Dr Bond examined the Whitehall torso in October and reported that "The uterus was absent", he surely didn't mean that the uterus was missing from the body but was found somewhere else.

Bests,

Mark D.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jeff,

When that same Dr Bond examined the Whitehall torso in October and reported that "The uterus was absent", he surely didn't mean that the uterus was missing from the body but was found somewhere else.

Bests,

Mark D.

The reason for Dr Bond's choice of words is that strictly speaking the responsibility of the surgeon in charge of the autopsy is limited to the body.
An absent organ may be on the floor, or in the room (at the crime scene), but so long as it is outside the body it is the responsibility of the police to find it.
Certainly the doctor can look around to see if it is within sight, but it's not his responsibility, thats all.
"Absent", purely means not inside the body, which was also the case with Kelly's heart at Millers Court.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

When that same Dr Bond examined the Whitehall torso in October and reported that "The uterus was absent", he surely didn't mean that the uterus was missing from the body but was found somewhere else.

Bests,

Mark D.

Hi Mark D.,

Yah, I would find it bizarre if that is what he meant.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

Absent means they could not find it.Otherwise it will be stated as 'found on the floor or table" for ex..Common sense.The doctor has to take account everything done to the victim and her body.

[Losmandris]

Oh I am excited this thread has started again. Would love to hear more thoughts on whether people believe Martha was the first victim? For me, there are just too many similarities to dismiss her. Most importantly, though a little anecdotal, that she could have been at least partially strangled.

[Wickerman]

Oh I am excited this thread has started again. Would love to hear more thoughts on whether people believe Martha was the first victim? For me, there are just too many similarities to dismiss her. Most importantly, though a little anecdotal, that she could have been at least partially strangled.

I still go with a couple of soldiers, nothing to do with Jack the Ripper.

[Losmandris]

I still go with a couple of soldiers, nothing to do with Jack the Ripper.

Isn't that based largely on the evidence of Pearly Poll? She was not exactly the most reliable of witnesses. I kind of take everything from her with a hefty pinch of salt. All things considered I find it strange how the soldier narrative has taken root in this case?

[Mark J D]

... Would love to hear more thoughts on whether people believe Martha was the first victim? For me, there are just too many similarities to dismiss her...

Go to 36'35" for a scientifically -- or, at any rate, technologically -- mediated examination of Martha's canonicity...

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x75c1x4

M.

[Wickerman]

Isn't that based largely on the evidence of Pearly Poll? She was not exactly the most reliable of witnesses. I kind of take everything from her with a hefty pinch of salt. All things considered I find it strange how the soldier narrative has taken root in this case?

The soldier theory is original to the case, that is why it is still around. It's what professionals call - Evidence.

A number of witnesses were prostitutes in these cases, are we only accepting a Cinderella for a witness?
If something else happened at the time, involving someone else, then lets hear it.
If you're referring to Tom's theories, well, you might as well bark at the Moon.

Lets hear the evidence, and let the evidence suggest what happened. You know, like the police do.

[Losmandris]

The soldier theory is original to the case, that is why it is still around. It's what professionals call - Evidence.

A number of witnesses were prostitutes in these cases, are we only accepting a Cinderella for a witness?
If something else happened at the time, involving someone else, then lets hear it.
If you're referring to Tom's theories, well, you might as well bark at the Moon.

Lets hear the evidence, and let the evidence suggest what happened. You know, like the police do.

But of all the witnesses involved in the case, Pearly Poll comes across as particularly unreliable, at least in my eyes. And she is the main source for the soldier angle. I think because of that, we get this idea that a bayonet was involved. I am not sure that it can be conclusively stated that it was. I also believe that because of this story this murder has always been dismissed or at least over looked. Which is a troubling.

[Losmandris]

Go to 36'35" for a scientifically -- or, at any rate, technologically -- mediated examination of Martha's canonicity...

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x75c1x4

M.

Seemed pretty conclusive to me. I am inclined to agree with the findings there!