|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Inaki Kamiruaga
Police Constable
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 4
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 4:47 pm: | 
|
Well, this is the first time I post on the Casebook (apart from the Pub Talk section), and I thought the Martha Tabram’s thread would be a good place for my “landing” on the Message Boards. As I said in the Pub Talk section, English is not my first language, so please bear with me!
I’d like to point out from the beginning that I believe that JTR started his killing spree on August 7, 1888, and that Martha Tabram’s murder was his starting signal. I know the subject has been hotly debated and several objections have been raised against her inclusion in the canon. I’d like to contribute to the subject addressing some of those objections and expressing my view.
I’d also like to point out that although I believe she should be included along with the “canonicals” I can understand some of the reasons some people have to dispute her status -- although the same could be said regarding some of the “canonicals”, i.e. Stride, Kelly, etc. I actually believe them to be JTR’s victims but I recognize that their inclusion could be challenged. For all that, I think our main goal shouldn’t be trying to find the definitive proof that ascertained once and for all whether such-and-such prostitute was or not a JTR’s victim. That’d be like the Holy Grail Quest…i.e. bound to failure.
In my view we should take a global approach to the alleged victims and see if the candidates meet enough requisites to be designated as “canonical” (a term I don't like at all, and IMHO, it should be replaced with a better word). Although it may sound a bit utopic we should also try to discard temporarily our preconceived ideas to prevent them from replacing the facts. And when I say facts I mean the facts by themselves and not the facts as interpreted by us (and please, don’t mistake facts for evidence). In other words, we should try to start from scratch and only see things as they are and not through a glass tinted with our preconceived ideas, interpretations, etc. Sadly, it seems to me that the Martha Tabram’s debate is one of those subjects in which all type of personal interpretations come into play to support many preconceived hypotheses. But before proceeding, let me say something. When you read the Facts Section you’ll probable be tempted to put your interpretation glasses on and read them through them. Please, don’t do it. Try to refrain yourself! I’ll later deal with some of the objections, but for the moment, I’d like you to read the raw facts and not the Facts as interpreted by us. Ok? So, let’s get down to the Facts… (As it’s a long post, I’ve divided it into smaller sections).
Fact #1- Evidence suggests that JTR strangled (at least partially) to prevent the victim make any noise and draw undesirable attention.
What facts do we know about Martha Tabram’s murder? We know the murder was noiseless. So noiseless that, despite the fact that the tenement block was overcrowded, no one heard a single sound or cry. Did the victim show any sign of having been strangled? Yes, she did! She had her fists clenched (Sugden,1998, p.16), indicating a possible strangulation. Even the Illustrated Police News stated: “… she being throttled while held down and the face and head so swollen and distorted in consequence that her real features are not discernible.” (Sugden,1998, p.18). Although, there is no other surviving document that corroborates the IPN statement, if we take a glance at her post-mortem picture we’ll see signs of a very possible strangulation. Fact #1 is a match.
Fact #2- Most of the JTR’s victims offered no resistance and were efficiently disposed of. Possibly, JTR used blitz attacks to overpower his victims. They were attacked by surprise.
Was it so different with Martha? According to Dr Killeen “there was no evidence of a struggle.” (Sugden, 1998, p.17). And obviously, she was disposed of so efficiently that no noise was made and no one knew what was happening a few feet away. I fact, the post mortem report listed no defense wounds, and it seems that Tabram didn’t try to flee or fight for her life, So, Fact #2 matches, too.
Fact #3- Contemporary medical examinations on the Ripper's canonical victims reported that there was no evidence of "recent connexion".
What about Martha? Dr Killeen “stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion”. (JTR- The Facts; p.35). Is that a match? As far as the evidence shows, it is.
Fact #4- The killer seemed to leave the victim’s body and clothes in a specific position.
Post-mortem positioning of Martha’s body: Tabram's legs had been separated and her dress had been raised and left that way by the killer; as were the rest of the canonicals. Another match.
Fact #5- JTR showed a destructive compulsión and a fixation on the throat and sexual organs… he brutalized his victims by attacking their lower abdomen.
There were 39 stabs that practically shred Martha’s body. The attack was so awful that George Collier, the deputy coroner, who conducted the inquest, stated that: “It was one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine”… “This was one of the most horrible crimes that had been committed for certainly some time past”. (Sugden, 1998, p.20,28) As for the rest… well, as Paul Begg states in his new book JTR- The Facts, p. 38, “Her murder was frenzied and horrendous, her sexual organs a particular focus…”. Besides, the murderer targeted her breasts and throat several times (later, I’ll deal with some of the objections raised on this point and how it is usually played down). But, so far as I can see and without going into technical discussion, Martha’s murder tallies with Fact #5.
Fact #6- As far as we know, and despite that there were more places where prostitutes worked, JTR restricted his murders within a mile area.
Martha’s attack took place in the middle of things (point also trivialized. I’ll deal with it later). Another match.
Fact #7- Police noticed that the murderer seemed to follow a pattern of dates. Those dates could be interpreted so as to think that the murders occurred on every 7/8th or every 30th/31st of the month.
Martha’s murder happened on the 7th August, fitting perfectly in the pattern. This is specially interesting because as Bob Hinton notes in his well worth reading book (From Hell, p.144,145), most serial killers kill at random dates rather than following a pattern. If JTR was forced to operate according to an “agenda”, i.e. he had regular employment, etc., this thing of dates would be more important than what we may think. One more match.
Fact #8- In all cases there was no apparent motive for such savagery and overkilling (please, note I don’t say just killing). All of them seemed to have been unprovoked attacks.
Martha’s murder fitted the rest of the cases perfectly. She was destitute, the murder was noisesless and residents saw and heard nothing despite they lived a few feet away. So, evidence suggested that it couldn’t be put down to one of those gangs that extorted money from prostitutes or a drunken customer who just blew a fuse and killed her in a fit of rage. The attack was very different from previous street robberies or sex attacks. For instante, when Emma Smith had been attacked her assailants didn’t mind whether they left her alive or not, but in Martha’s case her killer made sure that she was dead, and besides showed a gratuitous display of savagery and overkilling. "It was one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine…the man must have been a perfect savage to inflict such a number of wounds on a defenceless woman in such a way." (Sugden,1998, p.20) Fact #8 is a match.
Fact #9- In some cases, we know that the killer spent some time searching the victim’s pockets. We also know that no money was found with the victims for which is likely that their killer took the money (even if all the victims were pennyless when they met JTR, most probably they’d require payment before services so at least, they’d have the killer’s fee).
Tabram's report listed her possessions at the time of death. Clothing is outlined, but no word of money appears (The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook, p.9,10). It all indicates that despite all the frenziness, her killer found time to search her pockets and take the money. Another match.
Fact #10- JTR was a knifeman. He butchered with a knife, left no clues, and displayed considerable strength when attacking his victims.
Martha wasn’t beaten or shot to death. Her killer butchered her with one or two types of knives. He left no clues behind and we know that he was quite strong. He overpowered Martha noiselessly despite she was a heavyset woman and stabbed her 39 times! This is worth mentioning because, as Bob Hinton explains (From Hell, p.15): “What is often overlooked is that human skin is remarkably tough to pierce…”.
There are also other minor points that could add some weight to the facts. For instante, like the canonicals: Martha was a prostitute; Martha’s killer probably did most, if not all of his knife work after she was laying on her back unconscious (he didn’t stab her while she was standing); she seems to have been allowed to choose the place where she was killed (the killer did not attacked her on the street or drag her away somewhere to kill her); she was murdered 3 weeks before Polly Nichols; Frederick Abberline, Sir Robert Anderson, Edmund Reid, and Walter Dew all included Martha Tabram as a Ripper victim, etc.
(Message edited by inaki on June 07, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 07, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Police Constable
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 5
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
These are the raw facts. Have you been able to refrain yourself from putting on your interpretation glasses? I hope so! IMHO, they should be enough to include her in the canonical list. But, since Sir Melville Macnaghten excluded her from it, lots of students of the Ripper murders have followed suit and what’s more, facts have been pushed into the background (or totally replaced) by a wide range of Facts-Subtitutes that have emerged throughout the years. When I say Facts-Substitutes I mean a huge collection of ideas, interpretations, etc., that have blended into the facts, “taste” like facts and eventually have been assumed as facts. Some of them are interesting and add valuable points to the case but others have only served to “muddy the waters”, so to speak. I’d like to address some of them.
Facts-Substitues #1- Martha went with a military man. She was stabbed to death with a military type weapon and a penknife. A different kind of knife, not the long pointed knife used on the canonical Ripper victims. She did not have her throat cut. No organs removed. She did not have any abdominal mutilation beyond the stab wounds themselves.
Well, Dr Killeen never said that a bayonet had been used but only that it might have been used. Besides, a bayonet had not been used for the remaining 38 stabs (for those that advocate the 2 soldiers theory, I’d like them to elaborate the theory more fully: What are we supposed to believe? That one soldier stabbed her 38 times quietly and then the other soldier finished her off or that one of them stabbed her 38 times and then asked his “buddy” to borrow him his weapon for the final death blow?...). Dr Killeen is reported to have said the wound was caused by some sort of dagger or possibly a sword bayonet, but this was to distinguish the type of blade that penetrated her chest from the blade that caused the other wounds. Anyway, it was something extrange if a soldier had been the murderer because as Bob Hinton points out: “once the bayonet is removed from the rifle (…) the weapon becomes clumsy, unwieldy and not a very efficient weapon”. (From Hell, p.15). Besides, the “2 soldiers theory” actually doesn’t account for why, if Martha had been strangled and was already unconscious, her attacker/s carved her up so horribly. The truth is that, even the police didn’t attach much importance to that supposed military type weapon as evidence that the murder was the work of a soldier. They knew that apart from soldiers many people had bayonets and suchlike (Sugden, 1998, p.30). So, assuming that Matha was killed by the same hand as the others, why were the type of knives different? Well, it is known that serial killers have changed their murder weapons so this instance shouldn’t be different. But, what if the reason was more pragmatic? One of the things JTR could have learned after butchering Martha Tabram was that the knives employed were clumsy and cumbersome to use. So, if the Ripper was able to learn from previous mistakes, probably he realized that stabbing someone 39 times required a lot of time and energy and that improvement in technique was demanded.
Anyway, IMHO, the “soldier theory” is also a weak objection because it begs the question. We should always bear in mind that we know nothing about our man or his background. The “soldier theory” takes for granted that JTR couldn’t have been a soldier. If the objection to that is that no soldier was seen in the rest of the murders sites, the answer is quite simple. Just imagine that you are a soldier who has butchered a prostitute. You also know that soldiers are under suspicion and that identity parades are taking place. If you intended to strike again, would you still dress like a soldier or would you wear plain clothes and try to keep a low profile? In fact, judging from the way the killer overpowered his victims, how he dispatched them, etc., a good case could be done for the “mad soldier theory” (I’m not proposing that JTR was a soldier. I’m only saying that this theory is as good as the rest). Besides, if the grenadier seen hanging around outside George Yard Buildings was the murderer why should we believe his word that he was "waiting for his friend”? The thing is that there is no evidence that a second soldier ever existed.
The “cutting” objection. This often passes off as a fact. I can’t accept that because it is based on an assumption, too. It assumes that the interest of the murderer was to mutilate and cut throats from the beginning. We simply don’t know that. We do know that the killer’s showed interest in overkilling, destroying, etc. But we can’t safely assume that he cut throats because that was his main goal from the beginning and not because he found it a better way to dispatch his victims (in this case his previous experience with Martha would prove to be invaluable). The same way we don’t know if the interest in mutilating didn’t arise when he butchered Martha. Maybe, he found that stabbing wasn’t enough. That could be an explanation for the 39 stabs. He kept stabbing because he wasn’t totally satisfied. Only by choosing which victims are in and which ones are out can we say so emphatically that his goal was mutilating, cutting throats, etc. If the argument is that “we must put the limits somewhere”, well, later I’ll deal with it and why I believe the traditional method of deciding whether one prostitute was or not a JTR’s victim is not the best one.
No organs removed. This has been partly addressed above. It’s an assumption to say that the killer intended to mutilate or remove organs from the beginning. In fact, if we take a look at the next murder, i.e. Nichols’ murder, we can see that no organ was removed either. So, there’s nothing out of place in the Martha’s murder.
As for the abdominal mutilation… Before jumping to any conclusion, we should remind ourselves that Martha’s abdomen was heavily targeted, to the point that “the ferocity of the attack left hardened policemen shocked” (From Hell, p.14) It’s a mistake to work our way backwards. If we compare Martha with, say Eddowes, we’d be applying a wrong tactic. We can’t assume that because in following cases there was that kind of mutilation (and I’d like to make it clear that stabbing repeatedly is another way of mutilating) it had to be so in the beginning. For instance, a more logical comparison should be that of Polly Nichols, the nearest victim in time. It is a fact that JTR only disfigured the outside of her abdomen; and that the cuts didn’t show any other purpose than cutting it. No evisceration in this case. If you argue that he was interrupted then you are just arguing on faith . We simply don’t know how much mutilation he wanted to inflict. Maybe, in that occasion he was just exploring other possibilities… One of the Dictionary definitions of mutilate is: “to destroy or injure severely.” Can we really say that that wasn’t what the killer of Martha did? So, at least we can observe some kind of obsession with destroying her abdomen.
Anyway, did JTR show any sign of experimenting with the victims and adapting tactics? Yes, he did! Let’s take a look at Annie Chapman’s murder. We know that most probably, her killer tried to decapitate her. For any reason he didn’t succeed. But the point is, did he ever try to decapitate another victim? As far as we know, he didn’t. So, what could we learn of that weird attempt? Could it be interpreted as though JTR wanted to experiment new things with his victims, only to find that it wasn’t worth the trouble? We don’t know, but the fact is that for the first time he introduced two new elements, i.e he tried to decapitate a woman and he removed some organs. Besides, he never tried to decapitate a woman again so that remains as an anomaly in his pattern of behaviour. So, this should serve as an example that our man wasn’t all the predictable we’d sometimes like him to be. If some of you feel tempted to reply that he still kept some of his characteristic features such as slashing her neck, etc., etc., the same could be argued about Polly Nichol’s and Eddowes’ murders. Like Martha, they were also stabbed! (Sugden, 1998, p.40, 242). So, we could say that stabbing was part of his features at the beginning and later of his career.
Facts-Substitues #2- In early attacks, it should be expected to find similarities in his MO and signature, i.e. throat-cutting, some kind of mutilation, etc. Throat cutting was a common way of killing people and it should be expected that in his trial-and-error period we also found this. Different MO and signature, nothing similar to the approach of the Ripper. 3 weeks is not long enough to develop a fully-fledged MO and signature involving throat cuts and mutilations.
First of all, I’d like to know what is understood by those terms. This is because we could be deciding arbitrarily what his signature was and what was not. For instance, if I chose to decide that the killer’s signature was to remove and steal organs then only 3 victims should be counted. However, if I chose to decide that his signature was to target the sexual organs then Martha should be included. Secondly, these objections have feet of clay. They harp on the improbability that a serial killer develop his MO. This have been proved wrong time and again. Apart from not taking into account the complexity of human nature, this approach also fails to take into account that MO describes a criminal’s characteristic patterns and style of work. This in itself implies enough time and enough examples to get established. It’s impossible to say what a criminal (or any person) will do the first time he faces a new situation (like murdering). Likewise, it’s impossible to say that there will be no significant improvements the second time he faces the same situation (and significant improvements imply a possible change in tactics, technique, etc.).
For those who find it difficult to accept that 3 weeks is more than enough to introduce those (IMHO, not so big) changes in the knife technique, I’d like to pose a question: Have you ever tried to introduce yourself in a serial killer’s shoes and tried to devise how you could dispatch somebody efficiently?... If your answer is: For Heaven’s sake! I’m a normal and sane person. I can’t get into a murderer’s shoes, etc… then you are answering why you can’t see the lapse of 3 weeks as a long enough period to come up with some kind of changes, improvements, etc. But a serial killer has done it! He’s taken his time to think about that. Besides, I’m pretty sure that everybody knows the saying: “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Well, before assuming that 3 weeks is not long enough to develop a better MO, we’d better remember that if Martha was his first murder then the killer already had a “picture on the ground” to work with for his next strike. Probably, he learned in that attack more than in all the previous months of fantasizing about it.
And finally, to say that there are few or no similarities between Martha’s murder and the rest is not true. Only if we dismiss or play down the facts will we arrive at such conclusion. Let’s see, probably Martha was strangled, laid back on the floor, her throat and abdomen heavily targeted, her clothes were turned up and disarrange as far as the centre of the body, and in the "lower portion of the body" there was a wound about three inches in length and one in depth, as if the killer had tried to rip it open (maybe he had to give up because he hadn’t the right type of weapon and that was what led him to change weapons in future attacks).
And what do we see in the Nichols’ murder? Did he change so significantly as to say that a different hand had been responsible for the murder? Let’s see. Probably Nichols was also strangled, laid back on the floor, her skirts raised almost to her stomach, her throat cut twice, her abdomen ripped up, and this is interesting, her private parts stabbed (Sugden, 1998, p.40). Besides, her abdominal injuries weren’t so precise as in the rest of the canonicals. So, was it so different? I’d like you to note that Polly was also stabbed in her private parts, the same as Martha. This is interesting because it cannot be said that the killer changed his MO so significantly. He still remained faithful to his stabbing technique. In fact, even Eddowes was also stabbed on the left groin by a pointed instrument! (Sugden, 1998, p.242). He only introduced some new concepts and even these were not so new. As I said above, most probably Martha’s killer gave her abdomen a go and tried to rip it open, too.
As for the throat cutting, this would only confirm my point. Polly’s throat was cut twice. A smaller cut of 4 inches long which finished half-way and a bigger one of 8 inches long which encircled the whole throat. This may suggest that the killer was still perfecting his technique and that he needed two attempts to do it well… One idea for why in Martha’s case the killer apparently used a different MO: Instead of focusing ourselves on MOs, signatures, techniques, etc, why don’t we approach the murder from a more pragmatic point of view? It’s been said that stabbing or slashing with a knife is instinctual, but a deliberate cutting of the throat in order to sever the carotid is a learned technique… Well, this sentence implies that you must be quite precise. But, what were Martha’s conditions like? Sugden says that lights were turned out at 11, so it was completely dark on the stairs in George Yard Buildings (Sugden,1998, p.15) --it would be much darker than in Mitre Square... If this was his first murder it’s possible that he realised that he couldn’t carry out a more precised throat-cutting and ripping attack, so after given Martha’s abdomen a go he gave up and started stabbing (could this be the place where the English saying “to stab in the dark”originated?... Sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun…).
But, did that make him feel frustated and for that reason stabbed Martha’s body to shreds?... We simply don’t know although it’s a possible scenario. The thing is that this shows that if we envisage our man as a killing machine-type murderer we may be missing the point. JTR was human and he’d have to solve problems as he went along. Besides, as each and every murder was committed in different circumstances, at different locations and at different times they cannot be treated all alike -- these are some of the reasons for which I believe the traditional method of deciding whether one prostitute was or not a JTR’s victim is not the best one.
(Message edited by inaki on June 07, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 07, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 07, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Police Constable
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 6
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Facts-Substitutes #3- Martha’s killer showed a different personality type. She was murdered in a frenzied, uncontrolled attack by someone who was filled with rage. The Tabram murder was a result of a sex deal with a client, that went wrong or there was some disagreement about the payment and because the offender was drunk…Or, in Tabram's case we see no other driving force that seemed to have triggered the killer into post-mortem actions. No sexual fantasies displayed in Tabram's wounds. There is a post-mortem signature with some kind of ritual contents, so the importance lays in what he did after the victim was killed.
These objections are based on the idea that the killer didn’t intend to do what he did on purpose but the murder (Tabram’s) was just a case of a sudden explosion of anger. The 39 stabs seem to suggest that, or do they? Once again we are basing our conclusions on assumptions. We simply can’t say what the killer had in mind! Apart from the reasons above mentioned, the apparent randomness of the stabbings could be a red herring. What some people call frenziness other people may call it experimentation. For instance, it may appear frenzied because of the number of wounds and that these appear to be scattered at random, but it could be the reverse. If we take a look at Martha’s wounds we can observe that her wounds were scattered in the sense that different parts of her body had been targeted by the killer but not in the sense that they had been caused without rhyme or reason. Most of Martha’s wounds reflect that her killer grouped the stabs into clusters, i.e. he concentrated 4 or 5 stabs in one area then another 5 or 6 stabs in another area, and so on. So, was it such an uncontrolled attack or could it have been that the killer was experimenting in different body areas?
To answer that question, I’d like you to take a look at the context. Does it show a frenzied attack or a much more controlled attack? Before we jump to conclusions we’d better have this in mind: Despite the all supposed frenziness there were no signs of a struggle at the crime scene (leading some officials to believe Tabram had been murdered elsewhere and dumped at the George Yard Buildings!). No one heard a single noise or scream, despite they lived a few feet away. No insulting, no beating, etc. First, her killer strangled her, at least to unconciousness (although, most probably from the viewpoint of the killer, to death). After she had collapsed on the floor he didn’t think that it was enough. Not content with that, he took out his knife and began to stab at her, and possibly he even switched weapons or opened another blade. Once he was over, his reaction wasn’t to rush out but he still was cold enough as to position her body in a similar way as the rest of the canonicals (bear in mind that most of the times, after a frenzied attack, you wouldn’t see a suggestive or offensive positioning of the victim’s body unless the murderer left it so deliberately). Besides, most probably he searched through her pockets and took the money (as in the rest of the cases, too). Does this sound as client who blew a fuse and killed her in a drunken rage or just as a sex-deal that went wrong?
But, for arguments’ sake, let’s accept that something Martha did or said made her killer blow up like crazy. Would that mean that JTR had nothing to do with that? Not at all! Because, once again, we know nothing about our killer, his background or the reasons that triggered his killing spree. What if something that Martha did or say (eg, did she make fun of his sexual impotence?…etc.) triggered his pent-up emotions and frustrations and made him vent them on her and later on more prostitutes? Once again, these types of objections adds nothing to the equation.
As for the post-mortem actions, fantasies, etc. Was it so different? Although most of the wounds were inflicted while Martha was still (technically speaking) alive, we should bear in mind that her killer had strangled her first. So, from his viewpoint she would be dead or in a dead-like state. Thus, most of the stab wounds were caused when Tabram was already down and unconsciouss. That means that, at least 25 stab wounds were inflicted to what it looked like a lifeless body. Is that so different to what the Ripper did? Martha’s killer concentrated on destroying a dead-like body. And well, if you can’t see any sexual fantasy when her sexual organs were a particular focus… (JTR- The Facts, p. 38)… maybe we should first know what a sexual fantasy was for JTR, shoudn’t we?
Facts-Substitutes #4- The fact that George Yard Buildings were in the middle of things could simply be a coincidence or have some kind of social explanation… The Ripper wasn’t the only killer at large in the area. The area was dangerous and we have a number of murders that are not normally attributed to the Ripper, like Emma Smith’s case. Absence of an obvious motive is not singular. The Ripper wasn't the only one capable of performing murders without a motive. 3 weeks before the first canonical is a coincidence. Victim lying on her back with clothes dissarranged and turned up as in the rest of the series means nothing because it is a normal feature in sex murders, etc.
The list is endless, but do they add so much weight so that we can exclude Martha from the list of canonicals? It’s true that most probably the Ripper wasn’t the only killer at large. It’s also true that Whitechapel and surroundings were a dangerous area, and it’s true,too, that there had been some previous attacks. And probably there might be many social explanations to all that. All this is an interesting colection of points about the East End background and life conditions. Very interesting and instructive. But, however instructive it may be, if its purpose is to lessen Martha’s chances of being included in the list of canonicals, IMHO it falls flat.
That Martha was a prostitute who was butchered in the right geographical area is a fact and until someone can prove that JTR killed somewhere else, this fact can’t be dismissed out of hand. If someone resorts to social conditions as an explanation for Martha’s murder, he is inadvertently giving one of the possible reasons for how a fiend like the Ripper could have developed. So, far from playing down the importance of Martha’s murder, the reverse is true. Same goes for the rest of the objections, like the positioning of the body. To say that it is a normal feature in sex crimes doesn’t detract from the fact that a constant feature in the Ripper’s murders was that he left the victims in a specific position. Anyway, I’d like to know what type of sex crimes we have in mind... Those commited by (ex-)boyfriends, husbands, rapists, etc., or those commited by serial killers and suchlike? They cannot be treated alike. Martha’s murder doesn’t reflect the work of a jealous boyfriend or the work of a casual rapist. So, if we choose the second category we’d be tacitly admitting that a second Ripper-like murderer, i.e. a knife-wielding prostitute killer who dispatched them in the most ferocious manner, was operating only 3 weeks before our man emerged!
Besides, if we resort to previous crimes as a way of lessening Martha’s murder (despite the fact that there were no murders recorded at all in 1887 in Whitechapel) we run the risk that the argument backfires on us. Because the same could be retorted to favor Martha’s candidacy. It could be argued that, if despite the area was so dangerous, despite there had to be several killers at large, despite the locals were used to such crime rate, despite there had been some previous attacks on prostitutes…, how come is it that Martha’s murder was considered as a departure from all previous murders known to date?, “…the ferocity of the attack left hardened policemen shocked” (From Hell, p.14); the victim, in the view of one local newspaper, had been “literally butchered”, the “virulent savagery” of her killer “beyond comprehension”; “It was one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine”…; “This was one of the most horrible crimes that had been committed for certainly some time past”. Such was the alarming effect on the population that a few days later about 70 local men formed the first Vigilance Committee caused by the Whitechapel Murders (Sugden, 1998, p. 19). Or, as Bob Hinton put it: “What the people were seeing, posibly for the first time was a killing that had taken place just for the pure joy of killing”. (From Hell, p.21). Martha’s murder was a turning point in the perception of Whitechapel’s people. I think the locals were wiser than many of today’s students of the case. They felt that something unusual was going on.
My personal view is that most of the objections raised against her inclusion follow the same pattern: To play down and dismiss all the similarities and place an excessive reliance on the “coincidence” argument and on things which have been proven to be a “flimsy” argument time and again, i.e. the MO doesn’t change; criminals like the Ripper wouldn’t do this or that; his signature, technique, etc., were such and such… Interestingly, those who attach so much importance to those “technical aspects” and stick to them “come hell or high water”, are the same people who (in my opinion, quite rightly) don’t believe in all the scientifically unsupported profiling stuff and things like that. So, my conclusion is that most of their reluctance to include Martha in the list of canonicals obey to “mental barriers” and not to direct or solid evidence against her being a JTR’s victim.
(Message edited by inaki on June 07, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 07, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Police Constable
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 7
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
I said that I didn’t believe the traditional method of deciding whether one prostitute was or not a JTR’s victim was the best one. You have heard the expression "You can't see the forest for the trees." That is precisely what, IMHO, sometimes happens when approaching the Ripper’s case. Instead of trying to see the whole forest we seem to focus on a single tree or couple of trees, such as some interpretative details about what his technique was, whether he could have developed such MO or not, and an endless list of “ethereal and interpretative” aspects of the case. We simply can’t make a solid case out of what we “perceive” a killer would do in a given case. This is, to a large extend, because (as Robert W. House rightly noted on the Stride’s thread), there isn’t such a large number of attacks as to allow us speak so emphatically and “to entrench” ourselves in immovable conclusions about JTR's personality, behavior, MO, etc...
When we do that we run the risk of failing to see the whole picture, and all the psychological aspects of the case. We may fail to see that, most probably, Martha’s killer used the same approaching methodology as the Ripper, i.e. they both went to a secluded place, he strangled her to silence her, he laid her back on the floor, attacked her throat and abdomen ferociously with a knife, left her clothes turned up and disarrange as far as the centre of the body, and probably tried to rip open the lower portion of her body. He operated noiselessly, left no clues behind and probably took Martha’s money with him. Her attack was described as one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine and one of the most horrible crimes that had been committed for some time past, which caused people to form the first Vigilance Committee of the Whitechapel Murders. We may overlook that he didn’t stop stabbing as it can be seen in the Nichols’ and Eddowes’ murders. We may gloss over that he also departed from his pattern of behaviour and tried new things in the Chapman’s murder, and we may play down that the date he chose to attack Tabram fitted with the same type of dates JTR would choose 3 weeks later.
If we choose to focus on a single tree I’m sure we’ll find many “explanations” to undermine the similarities between her and some of the canonicals. But I’m pretty sure, too, that if I set out to find “weak points” in the rest of the series I’d find enough as to cast doubts over all of them. And if not, think of Stride, Kelly, etc… In a nutshell, we may be missing the whole forest. And the forest is that Martha’s murderer had the stamp of a maniacal killer… so similar to the man that only 3 weeks later would kill Polly Nichols, that it does take a long stretch of the imagination to put it down to a simple coincidence.
Does that mean that Martha Tabram was definitively a Ripper’s victim or that we should attach every crime in the Whitechapel area to JTR? Well, until someone invents the Time-Machine we’ll never know it for sure, but as I mentioned, the same could be said of some of the canonicals. As I stated at the beginning, our goal shouldn’t be trying to find the definitive proof that ascertained once and for all whether such-and-such prostitute was or not a JTR’s victim. That’d be a wild-goose chase. We should try to see if the whole picture has enough reasonable elements as to take it as a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. From that point on, we can debate it or dispute it as much as we wish… (actually, as many people do with some of the other victims). As for where to put the limits or which murders should be attributed to the Ripper, I think the answer is not that difficult. Would you --all Tabram doubters-- concede that JTR could at least have been capable of murdering Tabram savagely and quietly without mutilating her for reasons unknown to us --maybe, because it was his first time and he “prematurely ejaculated”? Who knows, but if we remain objective we’ll agree that Martha’s murder wouldn’t be such a bad starting point. At least, we woudn’t have to resort to obscure and unknown murders (supposedly commited by JTR in a previous time) to explain how our man came up as a fully-fledged serial killer.
Being open-minded is praiseworthy and allows to see things from different angles. I, myself, am open to solid evidence or arguments on this subject. We should always bear in mind that open-mindness implies the ability to change our positions if we see that we end up “juggling the facts” to defend them. To paraphrase David Hume: Our explanation could be more miraculous than the miracle we try to disprove…
For all the above mention, I fully support Martha’s inclusion in the list of the so-called canonicals. I think it’s only fair to restore the status she once enjoyed.
(Message edited by inaki on June 07, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 07, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2575
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
BLIMEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sensational thread Inaki am just printing it all out to read at my leisure as Im sure are many others!!!
Well done that man!!!!
Suzi |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 702
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
Wow, that's a lot for a new poster.
I only got about half way through it so far, but will try to finish it up later. So far I'd say I largely agree with what you've written. I won't say she definitely was a Ripper victim, but the arguments I've seen given here and in books to try to explain why she supposedly wasn't never sounded logical to me.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3496
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
Oh blimey, Inaki,
I have to agree with Suzi. Well done indeed. I have always (more or less) been of the opinion that Tabram should not be included in the canonicals, but your arguments actually nearly makes me sway and lean towards the opposite.
By the way, when you excused yourself on behalf of your English, you were joking, right? Because I would say it is impressive, to say the least.
Athough I belong to those who more or less questions Tabram's inclusion, I can't rule her out altogether. That would be stupid and -- as you imply -- to dismiss a lot of the facts at hand.
However, as you declare that the opponents to her inclusions downplay and under-rate the similatities, I think there are a few comments to make to some of your points.
As for your RAW FACTS points, I pretty much agree on your interpretations regarding points #1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 and 10.
Just some pointers regarding #5:
As many others you seem to give the brutality of the Tabram murder too much weight. Research has shown that other crimes, even worse and more horrific of nature and mutilation actually had been performed previously to the Emma Smith and Tabram killings (some of them have been listed here on Casebook and AP Wolf has done great efforts in trying to put them to our attention) -- some of them in London and even in East End.
What sorts the Tabram murder out from earlier ones before 1888, is that the tabloid papers suddenly had appeared, with horrific illustrations and detailed accounts, gaining this murder a completely different type of notoriety. The Tabram murder wasn't in any way more brutal or remarkable than earlier ones, so the reason for this must lie elsewhere, not in the nature of the crime itself. If we study the papers concerning the murder of Martha Tabram (and also Emma Smith), it appears as if those were the first murders ever commited in London and Britain as a whole, while the actual truth is that they really were not that extraordinary in comparison to others committed earlier in the late 19th century.
What as extraordinary with the Ripper murders were the fact that some of them appeared to be part of a series, committed by a killer unkown to the victims. But the murders pre-dating 1888 didn't have the illustrated tabloid papers that boosted them.
As for your so called "Fact-Substitues":
I totally agree on that it is not truly ascertained beyond doubt that two weapons were used, and which kind they were. Nor do I really believe that the murder was committed by two offenders.
But facts remains that a grenadier was hanging outside George Yard buildings and was approached by a police constable around the time where a murder might have been committed.
As for a military to change into plain clothing... this is pretty much speculation on your part as much as any other, isn't it? I am no military expert, but would a soldier in the 19th century actually have been able to switch to plain clothes at all? Weren't they supposed to wear their uniform at all times? Please correct me if I am wrong here, anyone, because I actually have no idea.
Of course the grenadier could have lied, but why should this option be more considered than any other interpretation? I can't see any reason to rule out that he actually were waiting for a friend, and that friend was inside the building. It makes rather good sense, with one companion acting as a look-out, if a soldier committed this crime.
The "cutting" and abdominal mutilation" factors: Here I disagree with you. I don't think the stabs are that clearly directed towards the sexual organs; that is an exagerration. Tabram had stabs all over, although mostly on her throat and breasts and on her upper abdominal area (however, the large cut is placed on the abdomin in a way that it could corroborate the one on Nichols). To say that these wounds were as oriented towards the sexual organs as on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes is to distort the facts and to over-emphathize this point.
First of all, I’d like to know what is understood by those terms. This is because we could be deciding arbitrarily what his signature was and what was not. For instance, if I chose to decide that the killer’s signature was to remove and steal organs then only 3 victims should be counted. However, if I chose to decide that his signature was to target the sexual organs then Martha should be included.
Signature is meant to describe a killer's motives and psychological behaviours that goes beyond the actual method of killing (while the modus operandi refers to the methods used by the killer to as efficient as possible subdue or kill his victim and perform the crime with as great efficiency as possible: choice of location, the throat cut and strangulation, escape routes etc.); in the Ripper's case the signature would include all post-mortem activities and things like trophee-taking, positioning of the bodies etc.
The throat cuts are not a part of the signature, according to general belief, but a part of the MO, usually done in order to really secure that the victim is dead (the strangulation is often done to as quickly as possible silence or subdue the victim). The mutilations, on the other hand, are all done post mortem and actually unnecessary for the actual killings and therefore instead a trademark that becomes an imprint of the killer's psychological needs and intentions. The MO is just a necessary fore-play to this.
There are killers, though, like some sexual sadists, where the MO and killing actually becomes a part of the fantasy for the killer. However, the Ripper does not belong to those.
A MO generally change due to gained experience, but a signature usually does NOT, since the signature is connected with the perpetrator's fantasies and inner needs.
It is a common mistake to mix these two up and all the time refer to "change of MO" -- the change of MO is not a problem (forget that dubious and confusing argument often put forward here) and has never been -- it is a change in signature that might be considered problematic.
But I admit, this is all merely a theoretical exercise.
"As for the post-mortem actions, fantasies, etc. Was it so different? Although most of the wounds were inflicted while Martha was still (technically speaking) alive, we should bear in mind that her killer had strangled her first. So, from his viewpoint she would be dead or in a dead-like state. Thus, most of the stab wounds were caused when Tabram was already down and unconscious. That means that, at least 25 stab wounds were inflicted to what it looked like a lifeless body. Is that so different to what the Ripper did?"
True, a very good point and I can buy this argument.
"Besides, if we resort to previous crimes as a way of lessening Martha’s murder (despite the fact that there were no murders recorded at all in 1887 in Whitechapel) we run the risk that the argument backfires on us."
As has been stated here several times on Casebook (and examples produced to underline it), murders were committed, and research indicates that the crime and death statistics for 1887 and earlier was not complete or correct and certainly not reliable. Those murders pre-dating 1888 can all be found in the papers, although they didn't produce the same explosive results, since they weren't exploited by the tabloids (most of them, like the Star, really took off thanks to the Ripper murders).
"But I’m pretty sure, too, that if I set out to find “weak points” in the rest of the series I’d find enough as to cast doubts over all of them."
No, not really. At least not Chapman and Eddowes (and in my mind not Nichols either).
There are loads of other points to acknowledge in your post that I agree and disagree with, but your posts are simply too long and it would take me too much time. Several of those have pretty much been debated to death anyway as far as I am concerned.
But you make a very strong case for Tabram and you produce very good arguments. I am not prepared to rule Tabram out of the canonical list completely but I am still not convinced of that the facts really proves her inclusion.
An impressive debut on the Boards, Inaki.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 441
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
Those were absolutely cracking posts Inaki, and full marks for putting a very strong and compelling case forward for the inclusion of Martha amongst the canonicals.
I personally am not certain one way ot the other, but probably lean about 60/40 towards her not being a JtR victim, but I don't think anyone could have put a stronger case forward.
I agree with more or less everything that Glenn has put in the post above, and couldnt have put it better, and like him there are loads more points that I could bring up, but here are just a few that Glenn didn't bring out.
In favour of Martha is of course that her death occured on a Bank holiday, if I remember rightly which would actually be another fact to be taken into consideration. She did not look dissimilar in appearance to Annie Chapman and Polly Nicholls.
I think the point you brought out about her pockets being rifled after the event and the money taken was a good one, and consistent with the others,
You did mention that there was no sign of connection, but I think that this cannot really be included as evidence as it was a fact that at least Polly on her own admission had earnt her doss money several times over and yet there was so sign of connection with her either, so I don't think that gives much weight to the argument.
I think most of the others Glenn has covered, but I will have another read through and see what I have missed.
Really though Inaki, a really amazing set of posts there and very persuasive. You have certainly set a high standard for your posts and I think you are going to have a real job topping them! I'm sure you'll give it a good try though!
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
Hi Inaki
Its excellent to see such a detailed analysis of the Tabram murder. I'm Also interested in your veiws on Ada Wilson and Annie Milwood attacts.
I think I've stated before that my count is 8. Which probably goes against the board trends.
I beleive that Tabram was a Ripper victim, although I hadn't realized that she also had been strangled...just convinces me more.
The two drunken soldiers has always struck me as a Red herring....As I've stated before your looking at one hell of a hang over. They just dont add up....not an attack of this savagery.
But what really cault my attention was your comments about the wrong knife to do the job.
I beleive some people on these boards have experimented with their sunday roasts and chickens.
Why would someone change knives half way through an attack? (bear in mind I dont beleive two people did this..dont make sense)
Did the Ripper find his weapon inadiquate to do what he wanted?
Does he come back with a new weapon for Nicols?
Has he improved his strangulation lowering and knife cut?
The early police investigation included Tabram.....I'd cannonize Annie and Ada aswell...
The only mystery is why Jack was so far off his patch in the Stride case.
Tabram...bulls eye.
excellent post and welcome from the sunny East End.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
PS. Just a thought but if Tabram left with a soldier as Pearly Poll says...and Tabram meets the Ripper after the sodier...is it not odd that Tabram has 'not' been interfered with?
These were all street girls surely regularly interfered with...just have always been suspicious of the doctors reports, particularly Dr Bonds.
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3500
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Jeff,
No one has mentioned anything about "two drunken" soldiers.
A soldier was caught hanging around outside George Yard buildings the night of the murder and on a time when the murder could have been committed, and this according to a PC (forget Pearly Poll, which is a too unreliable a source anyway) and that is a fact in the case -- I fail to see how that could be a red herring and modern police would certainly not consider it as such.
I can't see any reason whatsoever to dismiss that soldier or his friend (if such a friend existed).
As for strangulation... studying the sources, that has not really been established in Tabram's case (which Inaki also acknowledges) and I still wouldn't call it fully confirmed, but I agree on that Inaki makes a good case for that point and I can't find any reason either to argue against it.
"The only mystery is why Jack was so far off his patch in the Stride case."
Secondly, last time I checked, Liz Stride's inclusion among the canonicals has not been fully established; that you believe her to be a Ripper victim, now that is another thing. But you don't actually know that Jack were "so far off his patch".
Thirdly, if he was, I fail to see why Berner Street is more off than Buck's Row. When I walked the East End route, Buck's Row was actually the one I felt to be more off from the other locations. And then we have Mitre Square. So -- although I don't support Stride's inclusion among the canonicals -- I can't really see Berner Street's location as a problem in that regards. But I am not a local, so it might be that I got the wrong impression of the distance.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 85
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Bravo!
Inaki, I included Tabram as "most likely" a Ripper victim to begin with, and even more so after reading your posts.
A tour de force. Welcome to the boards, by the way.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 181
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
Glen...do you bite your thumb at me sir?
Only kidding....and back on our favourite subject...and keep those counter punches going.
Actually I think you miss read my comments on Stride.....she is the biggest problem and I was trying to acknowlge this, even though I do beleive she's a victim yes.
When I say off location I was refering to crossing commercial street. I've thought about what you've said and I do usually park in sainsbury's car park behind the Blind Begger and start at Bucks Row via the seamans mission then up hanbury street, Brick lane, Dorset St, Mitre sq and do Berner street last. Perhaps thats why I think its far out.
But I was thinking that the other attacks including Annie, Ada, even Emma Smith were all North of commercial street, so I always think the walk up Hanbury St into Brick lane as Ripper heart land. Guess its subjective.
Back to Biz.....Surely Inaki's theory about Tabram being strangled is pivital here. If Tabram was strangled and lowered to the floor and attacked when dead/unconcious...surely we're looking at an attacker very much like Jack.
Also if this is not the case how do you explain that nobody heard anything...surely someone being stabbed 39 times makes alot of noise?
Hows things over there Glen? You'll be pleased to know the Sun is Shining over here, people sun bathing in the East end couldnt be further from the fog and gas lamp cliches.
Good to talk again
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 620
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Inaki - great posts which I have only now found (thanks to Jeff). Your English is frankly superb. We are very fortunate with out linguists on Casebook: Glenn, Helge, now you.
I maintain an open mind on Tabram - 55:45 in favour I'd say, but AP's recent observation that if all the canonical killings are associated with Jack then NO ONE else was killing prostitutes in Whitechapel in 1888. So maybe tabram was by another hand.
All prostitutes are usually accustomed to use techniques to bring a man off without the actual sex-act being involved. So she could have satisfied the soldier and shown no obvious trace.
But you provide powerful arguments her killer was Jack.
Congratuklations again, and the warmest welcome,
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3503
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
Hi Jeff
(by the way... it's Glenn, not Glen... the latter one is the anglosaxian version seldom used here... sorry, didn't mean to be picky, but I come across this too often.  )
Nice to talk to you again, as always.
As for the locations, you are probably more on home turf than I am -- for natural reasons.
It was just something that struck me when I've checked the maps, and when I strolled around there myself over a year ago. Buck's Row was the site that I felt to be very much off from the others, so far off that I actually never managed to get there, but had to turn back halfway through (was stressed for time, unfortunately).
Sure, Berner Street is far off too, but I feel that Buck's Row -- compared to the cluster of the other killings in the Whitechapel area -- is way off. The Jack the Ripper Tours usually don't include Buck's Row (and Berner Street, for that matter) for that very reason.
"Back to Biz.....Surely Inaki's theory about Tabram being strangled is pivital here. If Tabram was strangled and lowered to the floor and attacked when dead/unconcious...surely we're looking at an attacker very much like Jack."
I totally agree with this and I also stated so. Indeed. I only wanted to point out that we have no absolute confirmation on that she was strangled, but I admit that Ikani's interpretation here is interesting and could be totally correct.
I agree on that much points at the fact that she was strangled, and if that's the case then yes -- that is a similarity with the Ripper we can't dismiss straight off.
Problem is that subduing or killing someone with strangulation before getting to work with a knife is an incredibly uncommon approach because you can easily overcome and silence your victim. And in contrast to what Inaki states, strangulation is not necessarily a sign of a methodical killer but can also be done in rage and psychotic frenzy. But yes, it is a valid argument and I feel it is a strong one on Inaki's part nevertheless.
"Also if this is not the case how do you explain that nobody heard anything...surely someone being stabbed 39 times makes alot of noise?"
Ah, that's easy.
No, actually they do not, necessarily. Not if you strangle the victim first. One point of strangling your victim is to silence and subdue her, which leads to the result that as little noise as possible is created. I wouldn't say that this is something only the Ripper has experimented with, but it is actually a very common approach. And a soldier would certainly know how to do it, even in pure rage.
Just a pointer, in order to show that it doesn't prove anything.
Ah, the sun is shining over here from a clear blue sky too today, thanks, but it's not especially warm (which I personally like, because I do not enjoy heat) and the last week we've had a terrible weather with rain and thunderstorms. Ben good for my plants on the balcony, though.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 182
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Glenn...There's not much is see at bucks Row anymore. The water works on the other side of the street has gone, but around the seaman mission at the top of the street then going over bridge and through the tunnel to comercial street you still get some atmosphere. Let me know next time your over and i'll show you the East End all the way to Epping Forest. Had my only ever spooky happening down bucks row..I was filming and walking backwards when I noticed my camera had clicked out of record didnt no when or where the murder spot was at the time...never happened before. When I got back to edit, my camera had switch out of record when I was standing in the exact spot Nicols body was found...dada dada...spooky.
Back to biz:
You seem to be saying that if the soliers did attack Tabram they also stangled her?
Its just to much of a coincidence....
Surely if she was struggled by a soldier in rage he wouldnt then stab her 39 times, as well?
It doesnt make sense.
If they stabbed her surely she makes noise.
If she's strangled, surely she's most likely a Ripper victim.
OK why am I so obsessed by the attacks or Annie, ada and Tabram?
Well I think they form a pattern.....
And that Tabram was a Ripper victim.
Thus the discription of Ada's attacker is probably the most reliable we have as well as Annies discrition of the clarsp knife (wish we had her discription of her attacker)
If Ada's attacker was Jack you can rule out most of the known Ripper suspects: including Tumblety, Druit and Joe Barnett.
Your going to hate this but could the burnt faced man have been an arsnic addict? oach!
Only kidding
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3505
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Jeff,
Interesting; I've heard that about Buck's Row. Seems like a strange place, even though very little is left of it.
Indeed, I might take you up on your offer next time.
"You seem to be saying that if the soliers did attack Tabram they also stangled her?
Its just to much of a coincidence.... "
Not really. It's a very common approach -- probably the most common one, and not just for serial killers but for killers in general. Apart from the mutilations, the Ripper's MO to overcome and silence his victims is one of the most common ones in crime history. And a soldier would certainly know how to do it.
"Surely if she was struggled by a soldier in rage he wouldnt then stab her 39 times, as well?"
Why not? I can't see why.
For the record: I didn't say that Tabram was strangled in rage, I only disputed that someone who indulges in strangulation has to be a methodical killer, because sometimes they are not.
"If Ada's attacker was Jack you can rule out most of the known Ripper suspects: including Tumblety, Druit and Joe Barnett."
I would probably rule them out anyway.
"Your going to hate this but could the burnt faced man have been an arsnic addict? oach!"
Ouch.
Don't go there.
All the best
P.S. I do share your interest in the Ada Wilson attack as well. However, although I am not especially intrigued by the Tabram and Millwood murders, I think Gunthorpe Street (George Yard) is one of the most authentic and atmospheric sites -- I just love that alley, where it takes off from Whitechapel High Street.
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Inaki,
Good posts. I have always felt that Tabram was a JTR victim. To me, there is a clear evolution in his technique, and I do not draw such an unflexable distinction between MO and signature as Glenn does. I think the argument from him is that MO and signature are completely separate, distinct elements in the crime. I disagree with this, and think there is a vast gray area here. Also, he suggests that MO evolves and signature does not. This is based on the theory that signature is derived from the deep-rooted psychological motivation for the killing, and that the MO is simply the logistical method of killing. As said before, I think that we can not draw such a clear distinction between the two. For example, to say the throat-slitting is MO, therefore the killer derived no pleasure from it, and he will always do this. The mutilation of the abdomen or taking of trophies is the only motivation, psychologically speaking... I just think this is rather simplistic thinking, and does not allow for the complex nature of psychological motivation for one's actions. Also, I think I should point out that the above idea, (i.e. Glenn's view on MO and signature) is only a theory and not all criminoligists agree on this. Kim Rossmo for example told me that signature killers are rare, and Jack the Ripper was not a signature killer. So clearly there is disagreement on this subject in the modern-day law enforcement community.
So yes, I say canonize her. I would also draw attention to Quentin Pittman's article in the dissertations section titled "The Case for Re-canonizing Martha Tabram". If anyone has not read this, it is an excellent and persuasive article.
Rob H |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Glenn...enough said...better stay clear, the maybrick thread have eyes and ears everywhere. Do any of the suspects fit Ada's discription? I think not.
Ada's attack was alot further down the road than Bucks Row...down towards Mile End..quite a brisk walk indeed.
if this was the first attack perhaps it was closer to Jacks Lodgings...only a wild guess.
None of the attacks were that far from the main Commercial Road. Just a thought. Many thanks for advice.
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3508
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
I know that Rob House has stated this earlier and yes -- there are one or two that would say that Jack the Ripper wasn't a signature killer. I can't agree with that, and very few people in the field would. If you have a friend that thinks otherwise, fine.
Most criminologists, police officers and profilers agree on that signature is every element in the crime that is not necessary for the actual killing. That is the whole point with the distinction. True, theoretical distinctions and generalisations are always questioned and should be, but it is always easy to find views that differ from the general ones. What I described is the generally accepted distinction -- as it is commonly used -- and it is a rather logical one.
As far as I know the post mortem activities displayed in the Ripper killings were done... that's right, post mortem, and common sense dictates that those therefore were not necessary for killing the victim since she already were dead -- therefore they simply must apply to or function as something else.
Jack the Ripper was most certainly a signature killer, since we have those important post mortem activities displayed.
As far as the cutting of throats is concerned... this is probably one of the most common ways to kill a person relatively easy and quick. Sure, one can never rule out that that could in itself contain some kind of pleasure for the killer, but since we have post mortem activity I would say the throat cuts as such only had the purpose of securing the victim's death.
But like I also said: there are murders where the actual MO (the killing itself and the methods involved) is a part of the signature, like in some crimes committed by sexual sadists who rape and torture their victims slowly to death and enjoys that particular part. It is in such cases things can get really confused.
In the Ripper we are not faced with that probelm, since the important parts of the crime are clearly done post-mortem.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3509
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Jeff,
I agree with everything in your last post.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 596
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Inaki,
Certainly an interesting and provocative thesis, but many points of contention do lurk within the the many words. For now, just a couple.
You see a similarity between the fact that Tabram had no money upon her and likewise the Canonical Five and decide this is evidence that she, like them, had been robbed. But what money was there to rob? Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes had no money, else they would not have been on the streets soliciting doss money and the same can probably be said of Kelly. In the case of Stride she likely had none to begin with either: If she were a victim of Jack and he was interrupted, then he had no time to look and if, as some assert, she was a victim of domestic violence, then the object of the attack was solely to kill her.
True, all of the victims would have been expected to receive payment from their respective Johns, but it may well have been during the consummation of the deal, when the victim's attention was riveted on the proffered coins, that Jack made his first murderous move.
Tabram, on the other hand, may have had some money on her. That is, if her murderer was not the soldier "Pearly Poll" left her with, then she may at least have still had his fee. Then again, she could have quickly turned that money into a "liquid asset" in some pub. But, had she been robbed that would suggest a circumstance rather different from the other victims.
In any case, you can't make specific links between victims on the basis of their generally pennyless condition.
You also mentioned two cuts to the throat of Polly Nichols as possibly indicating a tentativeness on the part of Jack as he moved from stabbing (Tabram) to throat slitting. But, in fact, both Annie Chapman and Katharine Eddowes also had two such cuts on their throats: one more or less superficial and the other quite determined. Stride only had one (interrupted or different assailant?) and the mutilations to Kelly were such that the doctors could not tell.
Finally for now, I sense you are quite contempuous of the notion of "coincidence." I am reminded of a line by R. Austin Freeman (that I must, unfortunately, only paraphrase) to the effect: "Life is full of remarkable coincidences that are accepted by all but reviewers of novels." He may have been on to something there.
Anyway, a most provocative series of posts and ones that shall keep the boards buzzing for a while.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
From University of North Carolina Criminal Profiling course (Dr. Tom O'Connor)
Modus operandi is the behavior necessary for the successful commission of a crime. At a minimum, every M.O. will contain elements that: (1) ensure success of the crime; (2) protect identity; and (3) effect escape. You cannot always link cases by M.O. because M.O. is dynamic and always changing with experience. It's learned behavior like any other behavior, and involves things like experience, education, and maturity.
Ritual is behavior that exceeds the means necessary to commit the crime. It is based on psychosexual needs, and is critical to the offender's fulfillment of their emotional needs. Ritual is rooted in fantasy, and frequently involves paraphiliac behavior, such as posing, overkill, and bondage. You cannot always link cases by ritual because it may be constant or it may change.
Signature is a combination of behaviors. It is identified in both the M.O. and ritual. Signature is not, however, the same thing as unusual behavior. Ritual signature is more likely encountered. Such signatures usually put the offender at great risk because they must stay at the crime scene longer. At other times, you'll have a combination of M.O. and signature, for example, when staging involves purposeful alteration of the crime scene in order to redirect investigation away from the offender. Signature often involves "red flags" or inconsistencies that do not add up.
|
| | | |
