|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3634
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:29 pm: | 
|
Inaki
I am sorry, but your arguments doesn't seem to make sense any longer.
You can't say that other people's arguments are speculative, when everything you state yourself is purely based on unfounded speculations and opinions.
"To say that he did that to silence her is speculative. No one knows the killer’s intentions or purpose. He may have gotten some kind of morbid or sick pleasure out of stabbing her throat. In fact, there might be some indications that may suggest that he didn’t stab her throat only to silence her."
I have no idea what you're saying here. I didn't say that Tabram's killer stabbed her throat to silence her -- on the contrary. I have never said her killer tried to silence her, besides the possible suffocation.
What I meant was that the stabs on Tabram seems to indicate frenzied attacks, not the more methodical ones we see in the Ripper victims, with targets on the body and an MO and signature clearly defined.
Throat cuts are often done in order to secure that the victim is killed quickly, while stabs are an uncontrolled expression of rage or frenzy -- the throat cuts on the Ripper victims seems to indicate, as it usually does, a need for the killer to quickly and efficiently secure the victim's death and if you know how to do it, it is a pretty clean and fast method (at least if we're speaking of a serial killer with other post mortem activities that follows). It is true we can not dive into the mind of a killer, but we do know that stabbing is a result of rage and frenzy and throat cuts often is not. For you to claim that this is speculative, is unfortunately speculative on your part to an even larger degree.
To link the random stabs against Tabram's throat (only one of several areas that were attacked) to the throat cuts made by the Ripper, is highly speculative and unfounded.
Random stabbing, as we see in Tabram's murder, is neither efficient or clean; you argue that the stabs on Tabram are directed towards the throat in such a way that they can be compared to the throat cuts on the Ripper victims, but if you didn't make such efforts to twist the evidence in order to make them show what you want, then you would see that the stabs on Tabram show no real direction towards any part of the body; she had a large amount of stabs on her breasts as well, not to mention the UPPER part of the abdominal body (nothing f this seems to have interested the Ripper). She had stabs all over her torso and the throat -- there is no real focus on either the throat or the genitalia area that especially links a connection to the Ripper murders. What you do is that you try to INVENT one.
True, we can see the Ripper's signature as someone who wanted to destroy the abdominal area of his victims, but you miss the point in that he in Nichols, Chapman and Eddows is pretty consistent and focused on certain target areas. Apart from the cuts in Eddowes' face, he never leaves this design or that particular focus, and (if we disregard Mary kelly for a minute) he never attacks anything else.
You argue that he in Tabram's case -- three weeks prior to Nichols -- may have had this design in his head from the beginning, but for some strange reason wanted to practice on Tabram and therefore it looked different from the others. That does not make sense.
I have told you before that you totally exaggerate the efficiency of Tabram's killer. If he suffocated her first (as you yourself suggest), I can't see any reason for why the killing would have made any particular noise. It happens all the time that strangled people are taken by surprise by their killer -- that is why they manage to get strangled in the first place!
The whole point with suffocation (unless a killer does it from sexual pleasure) is to subdue the victim and make her senseless, and that can be done quite easily and has been done countless of times without giving the victim any chance to escape or utter a sound. I totally disagree on your view on Tabram's murder as some kind of clever specialist who were terribly efficient, because there was simply no need for it. Tabram was big, but she could have been drunk or -- more importantly -- her killer could have been bigger! Why do you assume that Tabram should be stronger than her killer? How do you know what Tabram's killer looked like? I don't get it.
If "seeing the whole picture" in your interpretation means dismissing or overlooking important details or exaggerating and twisting the evidence beyond recognition in a way that they exceed the facts of the case, I'd say your approach is no longer objective.
Facts seem to indicate that Tabram's killer was maniacal or at least angry in a psychotic way -- which is usually the case in such extreme stabbing. In the Ripper's case, we see a killer with a very defined perception of what he wanted to do and which special targets he wanted to address on the body.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 99
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Hi all!
Glenn,
First of all, glad to see you around again. I thought that you had decided to “abandon” us. 
You are right about what you say at the beginning of your latest post. I misread your “throat cuts” for “throat stabs”. That’s why my first part makes no sense. Sorry about the mistake. I read it quickly and got you wrong. 
Anyway, I’d like to point out a few things. When you say: “It is true we can not dive into the mind of a killer, but we do know that stabbing is a result of rage and frenzy and throat cuts often is not…”
As you well say, we cannot dive into the mind of the killer, so it would be rather speculative to say that in Martha’s case her killer was angry and frenzied and in the other cases, when he ripped them up, tried to cut Chapman’s head off, grabbed and took away organs, etc., he was not frenzied. IMHO, that’s quite interpretative, to say the least.
Besides, I think that you are a Stride doubter, too. If you are one of those who believe that she was killed by an angry Michael Kidney or another customer, you must admit that the killer didn’t prove your theoric “rule” to be true. She wasn’t stabbed but had her throat slashed with precision. I’m not saying that she was a Ripper victim (although I believe she was), I’m only saying that according to your rules her case would only show that it’s impossible to draw such stringent conclusions about what stabbing and slashing mean.
About the supossed “ramdom distribution” of stabs you mention in your post…
I’ll repeat what I said in my original post:
“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? And I’d add: were they part of a destructive compulsion as the Ripper exibited? In fact, what I said about not knowing the killer’s intentions or purpose or if he may have gotten some kind of morbid or sick pleasure out of stabbing her throat, still remains valid. Martha’s killer didn’t react like just a client who blew a fuse, lost all control of the affair and killed her. After overpowering her, he didn’t take to his heels but spent a precious time butchering her when she was in a lifeless-like state and every second spent on that floor landing presented an added risk to be caught or spotted by someone.
“In the Ripper's case, we see a killer with a very defined perception of what he wanted to do and which special targets he wanted to address on the body.”
This is precisely one of the reasons for which Martha’s murder is so important in the Ripper series! You propose a scenario in which the killer showed up being a fully-fledged killer from the beginning. Assuming that the differences between Martha’s case and the others don’t have a simple explanation such as that the killer chose the wrong weapon to carry out the murder or that the place chosen to do it was too dark (it was much darker than Mitre square) and made impossible to use a more precise technique like slashing, your objection would only add more weight to my thesis.
No one is born knowing all. If JTR had such a “defined perception” is because he had defined it somewhere. Instead of looking for unknown and obscure cases in which the Ripper could have “taken his first steps”, let’s focus our atention on a case, which is not unknown, and shows quite a few similarities with the others. Tabram’s case fits like glove. 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. After all, if your unknown Stride’s killer was able to use the slashing technique to dispatch her, what’s the difficulty to admit that our man could have used that technique (along with stabbing, let’s not forget that he didn’t give up stabbing his victims) with the others after having learned the hard way that stabbing somebody so many times was not pratical?
“If he suffocated her first (as you yourself suggest), I can't see any reason for why the killing would have made any particular noise.”
No, the surprising thing is that he suffocated her without her being able to fight for her llve and alert the people that lived a few feet away. I’m not suggesting that Tabram was stronger than her attacker, but probably she was strong enough and was street-wise enough as to have presented a better defence is she had felt that something wrong was going on. You say that strangling someone can be done quite easily…
Well, I’ve never strangled someone so I cannot say how “easy” it could be. But, I think you are putting frequency and ease on a par. The fact that many people have been strangled dont’ mean that it’s an easy task to do. For that reason I can’t agree with you when you say: “it happens all the time that strangled people are taken by surprise by their killer -- that is why they manage to get strangled in the first place!”
Well, many people are raped but that doesn’t mean that they cannot put up some kind of defence, scrath the attacker, etc.
They weren’t in an Motel room or in an isolated spot. They were just a few feet away from where people were living. And we’d better bear in mind that those people had no security and sound-proofed doors.
And if you assume that Martha may have been drunk when she was attacked to lessen her case, why don’t you use the same type of reasoning when the theory of a drunk client has been advanced? It fascinates me to see how what it works for the killer (his being drunk and being able to pull off that attack noiselessly) doesn’t work for the victim (she cannot fight for her life, she cannot make any noise while fighting, etc.).
“If "seeing the whole picture" in your interpretation means dismissing or overlooking important details or exaggerating and twisting the evidence beyond recognition…”
Well, not unless you take my mistake into account. Seeing the whole picture means not to single out the elements to prove that the Ripper couldn’t modify his MO according to the need or experience. It means to accept that a killer can learn from experience, and show some differences in subsequent attacks (the differences that every improvement entail). It means to see that there are many other facts which point to the same direction as the others: see my 10 Facts post.
I’d like to take advantage of all this to say that most of the times it’s the Tabram doubters who play down or overlook some important details. For instance, I’m going to quote one of our regular posters who is on vacation and cannot post on Casebook. He emailed me and said the following (Hi Helge! I hope you are enjoying your holiday):
“There is one thing I feel is very important concerning the case for re-canonizing Martha Tabram, and it has to do with one of the very few thing we actually know with some certainty about Jack the Ripper: He was a working man. This is so easily forgot when talking about suspects.
All murders were done in weekends, and Tabram was in fact murdered on Monday, 06 August 1888 which happened to be a Bank Holiday.
I feel this is highly significant. Not evidence as such, but certainly a strong indication.
Also, AFAIK, no one has yet opened up the topic of comfort zones in the Tabram murder. I'm sure you are aware of the fact that George Yard is in the middle of what we may interpret as Jack's comfort zone, his primary ‘killing grounds’.”
These details are often played down and put down to coincidence, sociological reasons, etc. Anything but admitting that even those facts point to the same hand behind the Martha’s murder.
Well, I think my point is clear. Glenn, once again sorry for mistaking your words. And now that I have seen that your are so strong and healthy I'm going to have some more drinks to your health so next time you keep in this "healthy" state.
Dear me! How tough is life for well-intentioned posters...
PS- By the way, as I was writting this post I heard on the radio that there is a new book on the JTR with a new theory. It says that the killer wasn’t from the UK but a sailor who commited those murders when his ship docked in London. I know that the sailor theory is not new but I guess they meant a new suspect. Any news about it?
(Message edited by inaki on June 28, 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
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3638
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Hi Inaki,
Don't sweat; I'll soon get back into my shell again.
I suspected you misread my post a bit there. I sometimes do the same mistake myself, reading too fast. Never mind about that, but your response puzzled me. 
Firstly, let me just add: although I haven't tried it myself, of course, strangulation is very efficient and usually it is very hard for a victim of strangulation to out up any defense. Fighting back is quite tough when you are grasping for air. Strangulation is one of the most common methods of killing or attacking, and it is totally dependent on that the victim is taken by suprise. Another 'benefit' is that the suffocation also stops the victim from screaming or making noise.
I can't see why you are making such a big deal out of this quite simple thing. Strangulation is quiet and keeps the victim from fighting back. I don't understand why you find it so puzzling that that Tabram didn't fight back, and even if she tried to, very little noise would be made from it.
"Well, many people are raped but that doesn’t mean that they cannot put up some kind of defence, scrath the attacker, etc."
But when you are raped, you are not grasping for air from a grip on your throat, and you can also scream if you decide to do so -- at least yu are not necessarily physically kept from screaming
And let me just add once more... although you put forward good arguments in favour of her being suffocated, it is not verified that she WAS suffocated or strangled. Dr. Killeen was VERY firm on the point that she was not. True, we can't totally trust the doctors of 1888 on certain points, like time of death, but on this matter he is very clear, and in contrast to you I can't really see anything in the morgue photo that suggests that she was. She was plumb anyway, so it is pretty hard to make any deductions about swollen face ec. Nor can I see a lacerating tongue because no tongue is visible (unless I need new glasses or have missed a passage in Killeen's report).
As for patterns and location of the wounds... No, Inaki, we can't say what the killer had in mind but we must use common sense here.
Trying to create a wound pattern on Tabram is in my mind more speculative, since there is none. It is a plain fact that her wounds are distributed in 'clusters' -- as you correctly state -- but those clusters are all over the body. Saying that there is a clear direction towards the throat is a fallacy, since other areas are equally targeted.
The same thing with the vagina; the largest part of the abdominal wounds was actually on the UPPER part, not the lower one. Study the 'A Closer Look at the Victim's Wounds' section here on Casebook. But since she was stabbed in the throat and had some cuts in the vagina (which the Ripper's victim didn't have -- they were cut in the lower abdominal area and in the groin and upper inner thighs, not in the vagina) you over-empathize them and make them into some obscure link to the wounds on the Ripper victims, when actually Tabram was wounded on practically the whole torso except the arms and maybe the shoulders.
To create patters where there are none, is speculative and not taking facts into account. You are trying to construct 'facts' that doesn't exist.
However, I can acknowledge that the timing of the murder, on a bank holiday, is interesting and could be a viable link to consider. I can give you that much.
However, there can be perfectly understandable explanations for this -- but this is only my personal opinion and I could be basing them on the wrong facts -- and that is that the prostitutes with most certainty had a much larger amount on customers exactly on weekends and bank holidays, because one can imagine several were free from work or had money to spend, not to mention the boats coming in on the docks from abroad. The chance for a prostitute to get assaulted by a nasty customer, I'd see as much bigger on these nights because of the larger amount of customers as a whole, so as I see it, that is not necessarily a surprise.
Now, THAT is of course a speculative argument, I agree, but it can't be ruled out as a plausible explanation. In my mind it is rather logical.
But yes, I can acknowledge that point as a link to consider, although it isn't strong enough to convince me that it has to be the same man. According to my research on Scandinavian prostitutes in the very early 20th century, the women had three or four times more customers on those nights. So I have always felt that argument to be rather lame.
As for so called 'comfort zones', that is in my mind a theoretical and academic construction based on geographical profiling and I do not give it any credence whatsoever.
Common sense dictates that a killer -- if he belongs to the type who is disorganized and unsure of himself -- commits his murders close to where he lives or works, simply because he knows the streets, backyards and alleys and is dependent on the knowledge of the area. That is simple deduction. But since we don't know the mental disposition of the killer (Tabram's or the Ripper), that is a difficult exercise that only leads to speculations.
'Comfort zones' are also very difficult to define, since we can't agree on which victims who really was killed by the same hand. As long as we can't be certain on that point, it is pretty redundant to indulge in those kind of exercises and it can be totally misleading -- in my mind, drawing squares, triangles and lines on maps belongs to fiction and theory but is useless in practice when we have so little information to build on.
It is for example said, that such a killer ought to be based close to the location of the first murder, but that doesn't help us much since it is not proven which murder was the first!
So such speculations and methods are only relevant when we have facts to base them on and that are practically undisputable. That is not the case in the Ripper murders.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 28, 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: 215
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
AP W I seem to have missed this thread could you please help by pionting me in the correct direction.
I still find it hard to beleive that Abbberline would have had a reason to Lie????
Willing to lissen to your arguements however. Jeff
Inaki, what can I add to your fab post, except that the autopsy done by keene simply isn't accurrate enough to estimate the exact farrocity of the attackers 'Stabs per Minute'. Its not accurate enough to really determin if two seperate knives were used or if it was a similar knife used on the other 'CANNONS'.
Given the evidence you've presented I just cant buy the possiblility of two seperate serial killers/killer was wandering the Streets that night with the intent of comiting very similar crimes. These type of crimes are rare.
And the only other suspect, the lone soldier, really holds no water when examined closely.
Jack did for Tabram. Getting into a debate about the ferrocity of the atrtack is pointless with out re-examination of the body and stab wounds.
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3640
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
David C.,
Your words are like music to my ears (and I mean the arguments, not for necessarily agreeing with me). Nothing to add.
Rodney,
Actually, quite a few prominent experts (hardly any "fairy-tale mongers") have today started to look at the possibility that Kelly might not have been a Ripper victim. Being mindset about facts and interpretations made in books over ten years ago gives me the impression that you are not quite up to date.
As for Begg, as far as I can tell from his new book he doesn't really discuss the canonisations of any of the Ripper victims that much, so his points of view are hard to determine. He hardly even discusses Stride in this context, for example (which was one thing I lacked in his otherwise great book -- it was like the developments in the case had stood still since his previous edition).
And a lot of things have happened and new ground-breaking research has been done since Sugden's book became published. It's a great book but many of the interpretations seems outdated.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 28, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
No worries, David, always glad to help when someone is quite right.
For anyone interested I did post the judge's comments concerning Abberline in the Cleveland Street Scandal - which were very damning - but I can't find those comments now.
However there is a cracking post from Chris Scott on November 17th 2004 on the 'Abberline's Role in the Cleveland Street Scandal' which doesn't pull any punches either. |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 101
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Glenn,
“Fighting back is quite tough when you are grasping for air. Strangulation is one of the most common methods of killing or attacking, and it is totally dependent on that the victim is taken by suprise… I can't see why you are making such a big deal out of this quite simple thing.”
Yes, I understand your point. But try to see things this way: even if fighting back is quite tough when you are grasping for air, some kind of fight is possible. You can even bump against something, kick the attacker, etc. And this is assuming the best conditions for the attacker. Once again I must insist on this point, they weren’t in an Motel room or in an isolated spot. They were just a few feet away from where people were living. And we’d better bear in mind that those people had no security and sound-proofed doors.
And so, I get to the point in which we both seem to meet or agree, i.e. that the victim was taken by surprise. This point is what I’m trying to drive home. The (IMHO) only way to do what the killer did was if she was taken by surprise! And this is important because it may suggest that whoever went with Martha up those stairs had something else than sex in his mind (apart from the fact that she wasn’t raped). She saw no warning sign until the criminal fell upon her. It also suggests that the attacker planned to do what he did. This is more like the Ripper worked than like some angry or drunk client would’ve worked.
“Dr. Killeen was VERY firm on the point that she was not. True, we can't totally trust the doctors of 1888 on certain points, like time of death, but on this matter he is very clear,…”
Well, apart from having some doubts about the accuracy of the autopsy (as Jeff rightly points out) I'm afraid that Dr Killeen’s words could be a bit misleading. It’s true that he thought that the injuries had been caused while she was alive, but those words doesn’t preclude the possibility that she was suffocated to unconsciousness. In this context the meaning of Dr Killeen’s words would be that she wasn’t strangled to death. That’s why 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). And researchers like Sugden agree with this possibility. This would also be in accordance with the fact that “she had her fists clenched” (Sugden,1998, p.16). And in my opinion her photograph shows signs of a very possible strangulation.
“But since she was stabbed in the throat and had some cuts in the vagina (which the Ripper's victim didn't have -- they were cut in the lower abdominal area and in the groin and upper inner thighs, not in the vagina) you over-empathize them and make them into some obscure link to the wounds on the Ripper victims…”
I’m afraid that you are not right in this point. First of all, Paul Begg states in his new book JTR- The Facts, p. 38, “Her murder was frenzied and horrendous, her sexual organs a particular focus…” That was why “there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated”-- Sugden, 1998, p.17.
Secondly, it’s not true that that the Ripper victims showed no attack in the vagina. Nichols’s private parts were stabbed! --Sugden, 1998, p.40. This is interesting because this means that the killer also stabbed (not slashed) her vagina area. The same as in Martha’s case!
“It is a plain fact that her wounds are distributed in 'clusters' -- as you correctly state -- but those clusters are all over the body…”
Yes, and the way they are distributed suggests me that they were not so at ramdom. As you rightly states her arms and shoulders had not been targeted. If you are stabbing in a frezy state at ramdom and in the dark it should be expected that those areas had some kind of injure or cuts, too. But all the injures were grouped in clusters and in certain areas. This suggests to me that they were where the killer wanted them to be. As I said in my original post, what some people call frenziness other people may call it experimentation. The killer may have been targeting several parts of the body to see what he got out of it.
“I can acknowledge that the timing of the murder, on a bank holiday, is interesting and could be a viable link to consider…”
Yes, and it’s a fact to take into account. Whatever arguments we can come up with to explain those coincidences, the fact is that Martha’s killer didn’t strike any other day of the month. The reasons to explain why she was attacked a Bank Holiday may be the same reasons for why the Ripper struck in some days of the month. The bare fact is that it’s another coincidence.
When I wrote my first post I proposed myself to highlight all the facts that coincided in Martha’s case with the others. I wanted to show that there are enough reasonable points of coincidence to consider her a Ripper victim. The explanations we may produce to try to explain them might be right or might be totally off base. It’s something that we can’t know for sure. So, we should try to confine ourselves to the bare facts. And as I say, I think there are enough points of coincidence.
'Comfort zones' are also very difficult to define…
Yes, but up to a certain point. We should bear in mind that, as far as we know the Ripper worked in a very delimited area, so I wouldn’t be so sure to dismiss the ‘Confort zone aproach’ as not valid.
"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
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 102
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
David,
Thanks for your comments.
It doesn't mean that the killer was silent, it's just the luck of the draw.
Well, how lucky Martha's killer was or the Ripper was, is something we can't know. The fact is that in both instances (Martha's and the so-called canonical's) the killer wasn't heard. So, it's another fact in which they coincide.
To draw comparisons with other cases may be misleading. You should produce an example and we'd see whether it has the same characteristics of Martha's. Sometimes, we hear of similar cases but if we take a closer look there are some important differences.
Jack the Ripper's aims, and gruesome cravings, were to open up the abdomen, and when possible, remove organs. If Tabram's killer had time to inflict 39 stab wounds on a body that was probably dead from the first stab in the throat, then he had time to open up the abdomen, and make off with a "trophy".
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.
The killer of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, swiftly severed their throats,...
As I said, this is precisely one of the reasons for which Martha’s murder is so important in the Ripper series! You are also proposing a scenario in which the killer showed up being a fully-fledged killer from the beginning.
Assuming that the differences between Martha’s case and the others don’t have a simple explanation such as that the killer chose the wrong weapon to carry out the murder or that the place chosen to do it was too dark (it was much darker than Mitre square) and made impossible to use a more precise technique like slashing, your objection would only add more weight to my thesis.
No one is born knowing all. If JTR had such a “defined technique” is because he had defined it somewhere. Instead of looking for unknown and obscure cases in which the Ripper could have “taken his first steps”, we'd better focus our atention on a case, which is not unknown, and shows quite a few similarities with the others. Tabram’s case fits like glove.
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.
Besides, I feel that people concentrates too much on the knife technique. As I've said, it's a mistake to put all the cases on a par. Every case had its own particularities and differences. We don't even know if the first time the killer struck had the right weapon to slash the victim or rip her up. After all, Martha's killer didn't beat her or shoot her to death. Martha's killer also used a knife as a weapon.
That's why we should also concentrate on the other facts that surround the case. If we take them all, we'll see that those differences don't outweigh the similarities.
"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
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3643
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
Boy, you are not making this easy, are you? Still, I feel you continue to do the same mistakes whatever arguments one puts forward so I feel this is getting tedious. Let me only clarify and comment a few points.
"Yes, I understand your point. But try to see things this way: even if fighting back is quite tough when you are grasping for air, some kind of fight is possible. You can even bump against something, kick the attacker, etc. And this is assuming the best conditions for the attacker. "
No, not really. Not at all. I have no idea from where you get this strange fixation. I can't make my point clearer about strangulation, efficiency and the surprise effect than I already have. You are clearly wrong on this point.
"The (IMHO) only way to do what the killer did was if she was taken by surprise! And this is important because it may suggest that whoever went with Martha up those stairs had something else than sex in his mind (apart from the fact that she wasn’t raped). She saw no warning sign until the criminal fell upon her. It also suggests that the attacker planned to do what he did. This is more like the Ripper worked than like some angry or drunk client would’ve worked."
No, absolutely not. Tell me again why the Ripper or someone like him would be the only one capable of this.
You are not making sense. How many cases have you actually studied? This is not unique behaviour! You are arguing against one of the most common and efficient murder approaches in the world! And often perpetrated by people sane or insane. If people weren't taken by surprise they wouldn't managed to get strangled! It is the oldest crime in the book! It takes no Ripper to do this.
"I’m afraid that you are not right in this point. First of all, Paul Begg states in his new book JTR- The Facts, p. 38, “Her murder was frenzied and horrendous, her sexual organs a particular focus…” "
Well, I have no idea where Mr Begg got this from; as far as I know (and forgive me if I am wrong), that is not supported by any contemporary sources whatsoever. Or do you mean we should take Begg's personal interpretations as canon? As far as I can tell from studying the reports, Begg is clearly guilty of personal elaboration here.
There were no special focus on the sexual organs on Tabram.
Probably Begg wanted there to be, but I am afraid I can't take that in consideration. The contemporary evidence says, as far as I know, nothing of the sort and that is what matters to me.
"Well, apart from having some doubts about the accuracy of the autopsy (as Jeff rightly points out) I'm afraid that Dr Killeen’s words could be a bit misleading. It’s true that he thought that the injuries had been caused while she was alive, but those words doesn’t preclude the possibility that she was suffocated to unconsciousness."
Now, THIS is true, and I have to admit that may be correct, and I think I also embraced this possibility in ne of my very early posts on this thread. And in my personal opinion, I actually think she WAS suffocated or else too much noise would have been heard and probably a lot of screams too.
I was just pointing it out, since you made it sound like it was an absolute stated fact that she was strangled or suffocated and worked from that point of view.
No, there is nothing on the morgue photo that suggests that she was strangled or suffocated. I must admit I have no idea how you can tell; the tongue is not visible and she was rather fat anyway, so I can't grasp how you can "see" it.
Still, I would agree, that the clenched fingers would suggest suffocation. Absolutely.
"Yes, and the way they are distributed suggests me that they were not so at ramdom. As you rightly states her arms and shoulders had not been targeted. If you are stabbing in a frezy state at ramdom and in the dark it should be expected that those areas had some kind of injure or cuts, too. But all the injures were grouped in clusters and in certain areas. This suggests to me that they were where the killer wanted them to be."
Absolutely not. Now, this is clearly an example of how one chooses to read the evidence in a way that suits a personal opinion. You have yourself stated that we can not know how the killer felt or thought. Now you have suddenly decided that groupings of stabs indicates a deliberate pattern on the killer's part. This is clearly utter nonsense.
So you mean that just because not every single square on her torso was punched, then it must be a design? Talk about jumping to conclusions big time.
There is absolutely nothing on her body that suggests anything else than random stabbing. Everything else is unfounded speculation.
"As I said in my original post, what some people call frenziness other people may call it experimentation. The killer may have been targeting several parts of the body to see what he got out of it. "
Speculations and personal assumptions not supported by any facts whatsoever. Again, nothing but your own very personal interpretations and I do not agree with them.
"Whatever arguments we can come up with to explain those coincidences, the fact is that Martha’s killer didn’t strike any other day of the month. The reasons to explain why she was attacked a Bank Holiday may be the same reasons for why the Ripper struck in some days of the month."
But are you prepared to acknowledge the possibility that the risk of being attacked by a nasty client might be bigger on a holiday or weekend if their number of clients were much larger, right? Or are you disputing this possibility? Can you see this connection?
"We should bear in mind that, as far as we know the Ripper worked in a very delimited area, so I wouldn’t be so sure to dismiss the ‘Confort zone aproach’ as not valid. "
Well, we certainly can not draw any conclusions from it. As I said, we can't prove with certainty which victim thatreally belonged to the Ripper in all cases, so therefore it is quite difficult to draw any conclusions from the locations. Again, if Nichols was the first murder, then it would be tempting to deduce that the killer lived in the vicinity of Buck's Row, but what if she wasn't? You can't draw patterns (or read indcations from them) if you do not have enough established facts to build a foundation on. That is bad science.
---------------------------------
[Regarding your responses to David (if I may jump in):]
"It’s an assumption to say that the killer intended to mutilate or remove organs from the beginning."
And it's an even worse assumption to say that he didn't, since this is actually what the evidence suggests in the majority of the known Ripper murders.
"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”"
Yes, but unfortunately not in the way the Ripper victims looked like. The fact that her murder was violent has not been disputed by anyone.
"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."
This is clearly untrue. The longer and deeper incision on Nichols clearly shows an attempt to open her up, since her intestines actually protruded. It doesn't matter why she wasn't toally opened up or why organs weren't removed (although there could be several explanations for this)... it is quite evident that he had tried to eviscerate Nichols. It is all there in black and white.
It was not a superficial cut or stab wound.
And again, we see no attack om the breasts or on the upper abdomin whatsoever. Why did he -- three weeks after Tabram -- stop attacking the breast area and only confine himself to the lower abdomin?
"No one is born knowing all. If JTR had such a “defined technique” is because he had defined it somewhere. Instead of looking for unknown and obscure cases in which the Ripper could have “taken his first steps”, we'd better focus our atention on a case, which is not unknown, and shows quite a few similarities with the others. Tabram’s case fits like glove."
The problem is, several cases dictate that it is not uncommon for people starting extreme mutilation murders out of the blue. People actually does that. I am sorry. Once again, you are taking rather narrow perceptions of behaviour for granted.
"Besides, I feel that people concentrates too much on the knife technique. As I've said, it's a mistake to put all the cases on a par. Every case had its own particularities and differences."
Well, apparently not in the case of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. What you miss to acknowledge, is that those three murders on many crucial points are similar, which means that the Ripper HAD a refined technique, very little dependent on the circumstances.
(Sorry for barging in, David. Your call.)
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 28, 2005)
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: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
I am somewhat confused as to Tabrams wounds, this not being surprising because the descriptions I have read are somewhat vague. For example on the Dissertation "A CLoser Look at the Victims' Wounds", it is stated that "the lower portion of the body had one stab wound - 3" long and 1" deep, but was not mutilated". This I assume is a quote from the Post-mortem (or is it the author's interpretation?) This is not, as far as my interpretation, to be confused with the bayonet stab to the chest-bone (sternum), presumbaly directed at the heart? In any case, it seems that perhaps the reason the wound in the "lower portion of the body" was shallow depth is that it was done by a pen-knife, which I assume has a short blade. The post-mortem states also that "the breasts, stomach, abdomen, and vagina seemed to have been the main areas." This does not seem to be consistent with the diagram on that page (see below) in which the wounds are diagramed as being closer to the lower portion of the rib-cage.
My question is, how are we to interpret the words "lower portion of the body"? It seems to be a euphamism for vagina. Also, I would put the wounds as diagrammed closer to the abdomen. I think we should carefully consider these wounds, and also consider that Jack may have brought a weapon poorly suited to abdominal mutilation (if the blade was too short). I am still not very clear on exactly where these stabs were, but it seems to me that if we are to take Killeen at his word "the breasts, stomach, abdomen, and vagina seemed to have been the main areas". Thus we have 14 stabs to the abdominal region ( 2 spleen, 6 stomach, 5 liver, one vagina), 9 stabs to the neck, and 8 to the upper chest (5 left lung, 2 right lung, one heart). This to me seems consistent with Jacks focus... abdomen, neck.
RH |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3645
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
But in what way is the chest area, for example, consistent with Jack's focus?
But I agree, the dissertation is in Tabram's case a bit confusing, compared to Killeen's report. It does seem to lack the wounds referred to by Killeen as "abdominal.
Since Killeen's report is not complete in his counting of each wound, and no contemporary sketch exists, this of course opens up to specualtive interpretations and the sketch in this dissertation shall probably be seen as just an interpretation and nothing more and is therefore not totally reliable.
It is of course annoying that Killeen doesn't more precisely mention how many stab wounds that were inflicted to the abdomen and the chest.
However, I still fail to see any particular focus that resembles that of the Ripper. The attacked areas are simply too scattered and it seems like the breast area and upper abdominal/stomach area must be equally seen as a target for Tabram's killer as the abdomen or the neck. In short, it is not a conclusive pattern and the important areas not in any way as defined as the Ripper's targets.
It is easier to define the few areas on the torso where Tabram's killer DIDN'T attack than where he actually did.
We can of course pick and choose the areas on Tabram that we feel are consistent with the Ripper's targets, but what about the others?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 28, 2005)
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: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Just to facilitate discussion, I think this image may be more accurate.
I am interpreting the 3 inch gash 1 inch deep as being at the vagina, from Killeens statement that "the breasts, stomach, abdomen, and vagina seemed to have been the main areas". Otherwise, there is no other mention of a wound to the vagina so this must be it. Also glenn, I think we should remember that (assuming Kelly was a JTR victim, as I do, and which I am sure you must at least accept as a good possibility) JtR did have some interest in the upper chest region, as he removed Mary Kelly's heart. The attack to the heart is the one that was done with the "bayonet", Killeen says "the wound on the chest bone"... does this suggest that the knife thrust penetrated the sternum? In any case the heart was penetrated. With the exception of the wounds to the chest, these seem to be consistent with JtR's areas of concentration.
Note also in Eddowes: "liver was stabbed; left of the groin, a stab wound.." Here we have STABBING wounds, as Tabram was stabbed... at least one in the liver, and one in the groin area.
Also in Kelly: "The breasts were removed", and "Lower part of the right lung was broken and torn away." Here we have (clearly) post-mortem (signature) attacks to the chest area... breasts, heart, and lungs. Also, obviously, in Kelly's case, there were attacks to the arms and legs.
Nichols: "on the lower part of abdomen, 2"-3" from the left side ran a very deep, jagged wound, cutting the tissues through." This wound sounds similar to Tabrams' "stab wound" which although describes=d as a stab, was still 3 inches long... so I don't see how that is not a cut wound as Nichols had.
In short, it is a complete fallacy to claim that JtR only attacked the abdomen and throat. Clearly he attacked other body parts, including the chest and arms. As I said before, the focus seems to be on the throat (including the attempt to decapitate Chapman), and abdomen... both upper abdomen (liver, spleen, stomach) and lower (intestines, groin area). But this in no means suggests that he would not attack other areas as I have described. Also, we see in other victims, wound areas that are similar to Tabrams, including stab wounds. So I do not see how Tabram's wounds are inconsistent with the later ones.
As I have said before, my opinion is that we are witnessing the evolution both in MO and signature, while the underlying motivations for the signature remain consistent and are manifest in the focus on the throat and abdomen. As Peter Vronsky says in his book on Serial Killers, the early attacks are always the most difficult for the killers, and they learn from their mistakes. Often in the earliest attacks, the killer will go out without a weapon even, or with a weapon that he later decides is inappropriate, and then afterwards he refines his technique. So here we have a killer armed with a pen-knife, probably with a short blade (a penknife is like a jack-knife, usually with a short blade about 3 inches or so)... later his technique evolves, he probably changes weapons, and he learns a better way to kill, and becomes better at it.
RH |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 648
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Thanks for posting that diagram,Robert.
For a rough size estimate of the majority of these wounds,the area attacked encompassed something along the lines of a standard computer monitor [ around 16 in. x 16 in. ]...pretty centralized.
Even though the diagram above has only 29 wounds above the transverse colon [ and one down below ], this is a pretty accurate representation of the rather small area attacked on Mrs.Tabram's person. Thanks again,Robert.....
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3647
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Rob,
Great picture. I agree that is probably more accurate.
As for the rest of your post I can't say -- as usual -- that I agree with it.
As for as the Ripper is concerned... you are basing the mutilation of the chest area only on Mary Kelly, and I wouldn't state with certainty that she is safe enough to compare with (no, I can accept there is a possibility that she might have been a Ripper victim, but she doesn't even reach 50% probability, as far as I am concerned, and personally I do not believe she was).
The only ones in my view that are relevant to compare with here are Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes because those three are relatively consistent and similar in their wounds, and the injuries are also clearly defined to certain limited areas.
So it is a complete fallacy to say that the Ripper attacked the chest and the arms when that only can be referred to his alleged last victim, and a victim that is not even attributed to him with certainty.
Clearly the chest area was not attacked on either Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
And once again, stabbing a throat is not the same as cutting a throat.
You usually cut a person's throat for completely different reasons than stabbing. It is not the same thing. On Tabram the throat was stabbed multiple times like many of the other areas on her body, while the throats on the Ripper victims with most probability were done to kill them off as efficient as possible. This is methodical in a completely different way than Tabram's killer.
It's true, though, that organs belonging to the upper abdominal area was stabbed on Chapman and Eddowes, although that was inside the body. OK, sure of course there are stabs -- I have never disputed that. Just not in the same way as on Tabram. But still... OK argument.
I don't give the evolution theory much credence regarding the three week period between Tabram and Nichols. Even if he changed weapon, the period of time is just too short and narrow in order to "refine" the technique in such different manner. There is no tendency at all that he attempted to open up Tabram and take her organs -- at least Nichols had protruding intestines.
It is naturally not impossible, but it doesn't make sense to me. I understand your position and your arguments, but I can't accept the evolution theory uncritically as an explanation for every inconsistency, as you tend to do.
At the end of the day, Tabram might very well have been an early experimentation victim of an untrained Ripper, but personally I find the arguments too thin and unconvincing in favour of it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 28, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 111
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Perhaps someone can enlighten me on one point.Were any of the stab or slash wounds on Tabran made through the clothing.Or were all injuries made on exposed parts of the body.
If we consider the soldier as a reasonable suspect,and the murder a result of a sudden rage or blitz attack,then his training would probably condition him to stab to the chest or stomach region,and through the clothes.
If there were no marks on the clothing,it probably means the clothing was arranged by the killer,to leave the upper and lower body parts exposed.In that case,wouldn't we be seeking a controlled and rational person.
Of course,when the victims were lowered or fell to the ground,perhaps the clothing arranged itself,and there was no need for the killer to do anything but stab or slash.Anyone believe that?
If Tabran's clothing was rearranged to allow for exposed flesh,then it might correspond with such action at other victim's death scenes,and she can be presumed a Ripper victim. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3649
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
But can we really be certain of that the clothes on the Ripper victims were rearranged in one certain fashion, in order to expose the wounds?
This doesn't seem to have been the case as far as Nichols is concerned, for example, since she in contrast to Chapman and Eddowes had her clothes folded down to such a degree that the real injuries weren't spotted until the body arrived to the mortuary. So can we really see the disarrangment or rearrangement of the clothes as a true part of the Ripper's signature? I think not.
"If we consider the soldier as a reasonable suspect,and the murder a result of a sudden rage or blitz attack,then his training would probably condition him to stab to the chest or stomach region,and through the clothes."
True.
"If there were no marks on the clothing,it probably means the clothing was arranged by the killer,to leave the upper and lower body parts exposed.In that case,wouldn't we be seeking a controlled and rational person."
Not really. Why would such an act take a controlled and rational person?
A lot of disorganized individuals does that kind of thing. And even if it was a rational act (which I can't necessarily buy), there is nothing saying that an maniacal or drunk person can't commit rational acts in certain situations. People aren't just black and white and do not behave in just ONE way.
Killeens report says that the clothes were "disarranged", which I would expect them to be from this kind of attack anyway, and I find it rather difficult to read any special signature into it. Could be, of course, but there is no real indication on it in Killeen's report.
So it all comes down to the same problem: too little information and the information that exists is too vague.
It just actually occurred to me, thanks to your post, that Killeen doesn't seem to mention whether or not the stabs were made through the clothes or not.
I know there exists a skecth in the illustrated papers, though, where she is lying with stab wounds through the clothes; one wonders from where the artist got this information, or if it's just an artistic elaboration.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 29, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 106
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
Hi all!
Glenn,
Sorry mate, but I feel that this time you are grasping at straws. Let me deal with your objections…
“I have no idea from where you get this strange fixation. I can't make my point clearer about strangulation, efficiency…”
To answer that objection, I’ll call upon Helge to speak. He emailed me to contribute with a post about this and other points:
“Glenn, old buddy, I must disagree with you on the assumption that
strangulations are always so quiet. On the contrary. It takes a very
trained killer to achieve that. I quote Michelle Acker, from Murder or
Suicide, How You Can Tell the Difference":
/"..the victim will usually struggle, which results in damage to both
the interior and exterior structures of the neck and throat."/
Or perhaps I should rather quote from State of North Carolina v. Flor
Perez, III, paragraph 2
/*Homicide--testimony of medical
examiner--strangulation--corroboration--relevancy to premeditation,
deliberation, and intent*
..the trial court did not err in a first-degree murder case by
admitting testimony of the medical examiner that it usually takes
several seconds to maybe a minute for a victim to die from
strangulation, but it can take longer than a minute for a victim to die
if he is engaged in a struggle.."
/I rest my case.
Glenn, you said:
/"Common sense dictates that a killer -- if he belongs to the type who
is disorganized and unsure of himself -- commits his murders close to
where he lives or works, simply because he knows the streets, backyards
and alleys and is dependent on the knowledge of the area. That is simple
deduction."
/Yes, it is common sense, and simple deduction. What do you think
profiling is? It is not magic! The point here is that Comfort Zones
are based on common sense and simple deduction, as well as experience
and empirical statistics. Had Tabram been murdered in what we might have
considered to be the outskirts of a Comfort Zone, things would have been
more difficult. But she was not. She was killed smack bang in the middle
of it. And whether we believe in CZ's or not, fact is she was killed in
what we KNOW was Jack's killing grounds. And chances are he WAS indeed
dependent on knowing his turf to get away with it!
The point here is that we have several indications that point in the
direction of Jacky. It is actually irrelevant if there are more than one
interpretation on any one of them. The Bank Holiday issue, the Comfort
Zone issue, the several Isues Mr. Iñaki has put forward, all forge a
link of "coincidences" that individually proves nothing, but together
make IMO a strong case. This is what we are after here, we can never
expect (ok, we may hope) for real evidence in this old case.
To iterate for clarity: Even if one given indication here can be
explained away by proposing a different interpretation, or scoffing it
off as of little importance, several such indications will make a
stronger link when seen in relation to eachother. This aforementioned
method of discounting these "coincidences" simply holds no logic. The
only way to "disprove" a proposition based on such links are to propose
an alternative based on stronger links.
(Maybe I finally have been able to explain what I have been trying to
say for some time. If I have, it must be due to the fresh mountain air!
Kane, did this make sense?)
Ok, I really should have posted some answers to other posts as well, but
I have limited time. One thing I must declare, however (question from
another thread by Cludgy), NO, I am not Glenn's wife. At least not last
time I checked.. LOL (Would love to hear your reasoning on this,
Cludgy..its the single most zany hypothesis I have ever read on
Casebook, even more zany than my own ideas! LOL)
Fact: I am male (have you looked at my profile, I got a one day beard on
the pic)
Fact: Although guys are allright for the casual conversation, I have a
tendency to like women when it comes to romance..LOL
Fact: I am Norwegian, while Glenn is a Swede, yes we are both
Scandinavians, but this is a VERY weak indication..haha
Fact: Glenn and I disagrees on many aspects on the Ripper case..but
cordially so (Had I been his wife, the cordiality in a disagreement
would have been out of the question! LOL)
Ok, its late here, and my available light is approaching 0.07 lux
(inside joke), so I'll sign off for now. Will do some cave-diving in a
few days, and will not be in touch for some time..
Glenn, that mead is still waiting, if you ever dare try it LOL
Helge”
Glenn, IMHO, you are putting frequency and ease on a par. The fact that it’s a technique commonly used (partly because not many people carry a gun or a knife with them) and it is ‘silent’ compared to say shooting, doesn’t mean that strangling someone means that the victim can’t fight back, make any noise, etc. They weren’t in an Motel room or in an isolated spot. They were just a few feet away from where people were living, and those people had no security and sound-proofed doors. Nor the victim was a ‘poor little woman’ not used to the roughness of the street.
And come to think of it, Martha’s killer did carry a weapon. However, he was careful not to use it right away. Instead he chose to silence her before butching her. So, in my view this, along with the fact that she wasn’t raped, would lend a bit more weight to the thesis that whoever went with her up those stairs had something else than sex in mind.
“Tell me again why the Ripper or someone like him would be the only one capable of this… This is not unique behaviour! You are arguing against one of the most common and efficient murder approaches in the world!”
Sorry Glenn, but the point at issue is not whether someone else can commit this murder or not. The point is why “one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine…”, and which has many other similarities with the ‘Ripper murders’ that started 3 weeks later cannot have been commited by the same man.
The Ripper was not the only man who could have commited those murders. But saying that he wasn’t the only one doesn’t prevent us from assigning him several murders. The same objection that goes against Martha could go againts the others, too. Besides, this type of objection only illustrates my point about failing to see the whole picture.
Martha’s killer didn’t only strangle her. He went on to butch her in a dreadful manner (even for those people who were used to seeing so much violence), carry out some post-mortem activities, etc. And sorry, all those things taken together are not something that can be called a ‘common aproach’. Do you see my point? If you single out the elements you miss the picture. In this case all the elements, i.e. strangulation, butchering in a dreadful manner (not only stabbing), positioning of body and clothes, total silence, etc., go together in the same ‘parcel’, so to speak.
“I have no idea where Mr Begg got this from…”
Well, apart from considering Mr Begg an excellent researcher, I’m afraid that you are missing the point that in those times the expression “lower portion of the body" can be a euphemism for vagina (as Robert W. House rightly points out). That’s a better understanding for these quotes: “Her murder was frenzied and horrendous, her sexual organs a particular focus…” --JTR- The Facts, p. 38, and “there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated”-- Sugden, 1998, p.17.
Beside, I feel that you have been using a diagram which may have mislead you in your conclusions (the dissertation’s in Tabram's case).
And I see that you haven’t made any reference to the fact that Nichols’s private parts had also been stabbed! --Sugden, 1998, p.40. This is interesting because this means that the killer also stabbed (not slashed) her vagina area. Quite similar to Martha’s case!
And this also valid for when you say: “this is actually what the evidence suggests in the majority of the known Ripper murders.”
You are using the subsequent cases as evidence in Nichols’s case. If the killer had stopped in Bucks Row, no one could be so confident about the killer’s purposes. Maybe it was with Polly when the killer started to see the evisceration as a better way to carry out his fantasies. The same that Chapmans’s attempt of decapitation may indicate that the killer was still experimenting, Martha’s and Nichol’s wounds may indicate that the killer was looking for the way to crystallize his fantasies about destroying a woman’s body. I’ll say it once again, you are envisaging a fully-fledged, know all from the very beginning, type of killer.
“Why did he -- three weeks after Tabram -- stop attacking the breast area and only confine himself to the lower abdomen?”
Sorry, but I see things differently. Martha’s lower abdomen was also heavily targeted. Nichols’s private parts were also stabbed! Martha’s chest was stabbed several times, Nichol’s was ripped up “as high as the breast bone” --Sugden, 1998, p.39. This is not that far from the chest area. The same happened with Eddowes. Martha’s liver was stabbed, Eddowes’s liver was also stabbed and the left of her groin was stabed, too! I could go on, but I think this illustrates my point. This objection of yours is not as strong as it may seem.
The differences found between Martha’s murder and the others can be explained by the arguments already mentioned. The killer learned, improved, had to adapt himself to the different circumstances, victims, etc. But the overall result was still very similar. A killer who targeted prostitutes without apparent motive, in a specific area and time, following a pattern o dates, in a silent way, overkilling them and aiming to destroy her body, positioning the victims, leaving no clues behind, and a long etc.
“You have yourself stated that we can not know how the killer felt or thought. Now you have suddenly decided that groupings of stabs indicates a deliberate pattern on the killer's part…”
Gleen, maybe I haven’t made myself clear. If I’ve advanced that interpretation is to show that the same facts can be interpreted in a different way. So far, most of the people interprets the wounds in Martha’s body as an uncontrolled, frenzy attack, and give little if any consideration to the possibility that Martha’s wounds may show a different purpose (as Robert W. House points out when shows that Martha’s wounds are consistent with the others). This is my point. Everybody seems to take for granted the ‘disorganized wounds’ explanation. My purpose is not to speculate but to show that there are alternate explantions to the ‘speculative assumption’ that it was an uncontrolled, disorganized attack.
“are you prepared to acknowledge the possibility…”
Glenn, once again you are digging yourself in the “it’s not the only possibility” trench. Of course, that there are more posssibilities or possible explanations for Martha’s murder --and for all the commonly atributed Ripper murders, too. But, to say that there may be more explanations for a collection of facts doesn’t lessen them at all. They still coincide with the facts that we can see in the Ripper murders. It’s still a coincidence of facts, dates, pattern, behaviour, etc.
It seems that you are trying to find 100% proof evidence (or at least 90%) for this old murder. This is utopic. We’ll never find that type of evidence. So, we only have a collection of facts to see if the candidate meets enough of them to consider her a Ripper victim. IMHO. Martha meets more than enough. And police at that time also thought the same.
Maybe she wasn’t a Ripper victim after all. And maybe Stride, Kelly or even Nichols were not, either. But our mission is not to dispute their status from the “there may be more explanations” position. All of them were considered to be Ripper victims (Martha included) and they deserve that status. Who are we (people living over a hundred years after the events or Macnaghten, who joined the Yard in 1889) to deprive them of that (dubious) privilege, even more if the candidate satisfies many points of coincidence?
PS- “This doesn't seem to have been the case as far as Nichols is concerned, for example, since she in contrast to Chapman and Eddowes had her clothes folded down to such a degree that the real injuries weren't spotted until the body arrived to the mortuary…”
Sorry, but I can't agree with that. Let's see:
“She was lying on her back, her skirts raised almost to her stomach (…) Her hands, which were open, lay by her sides and her legs were extended and a little apart (…) Cross and Paul had partly pulled ker skirts down and they were now a little above ker knees”. –Sugden, 1998, p.36, 38.
Glenn, Nichols also reflected the same pattern. Their clothes were also turned up as far as the stomach or centre of the body. The same as Martha.
As for if the stabs had been made through the clothing…
Pc Barret described her clothes as being old and worn –Sugden, 1998, p.16. He made no reference to their being torn, pierced, etc. Neither Dr Killeen made any reference to that point. So, it seems that Harry’s points are valid.
"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
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 107
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
Hi Harry!
Nice points because IMHO they lend more weight to Martha’s murder being a Ripper one.
"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
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 452
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
Some good points there that got me thinking.I know that her clothes were raised up as if she had been in the middle of the act of sex, although of course that didn't mean that sex took place or was intended to take place, only that the clothes were in the sort of position they would have been in...........
There would have been only the one stab wound in the area that was exposed. I will see if I can find out if the clothes were unfastenened at the front as well and get back. Glenn is right, I have a small contemporary sketch showing her on the landing with her clothes fastened, but I don't think that is telling us much. We all know about newspapers!
What did get me thinking though was the diagram posted by Robert. Going back to the bayonet practice idea.......they do look awfully like the sort of wounds that appear on the dummies used for bayonet practice. They are told to aim for the heart and upper torso. All of the organs stabbed there are vital organs......although the heart itself is missed entirely. This is presumably because the rib cage was protecting it.
One thought I did have is: How was the knife held - over or underhand. I suddenly realised that this is quite important. I haven't really looked at it carefully yet, but I think just from first thoughts that the killer of Polly, Annie and Kate held the knife underhand......the way you would expect someone to hold it when gutting animals for instance. He would almost certainly have had to hold it this way to remove organs and cut their throats.
In the case of Martha, I suspect looking at the height of the wounds on the body that he knife was used overhand. Just logistically, try making those stab wounds underhand. I would say that it would be nigh on impossible, unless Martha was standing up or propped up at the time. He would have had to have been in a very strange position to inflict them underhand. If that is the case then it really is not just an evolving of MO, but something totally different altogether. Just a thought.
Thanks to Robert and Harry for the posts........there are some very intriguing ideas there to pursue. Be interested to see what else comes up.
Hugs to everyone ( as long as they aren't experimenting with a knife in their hand)
Jane
xxxxx
I feel a reconstruction coming on, |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3651
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
Inaki,
All I have to say that I more or less totally disagree with everything you say. You are the one who's grasping at straws and tries to see patterns that do not exist.
And as usual I am afraid you take to extreme exaggerations in order to try to prove a point.
Your example of trying to link the multiple stab wounds on Tabram's chest to the long cut on Eddowes abdomen "as high as the chest bone" is incredibly far fetched and one of the worst examples in this direction I have ever seen.
"Sorry Glenn, but the point at issue is not whether someone else can commit this murder or not. The point is why “one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine…”, and which has many other similarities with the ‘Ripper murders’ that started 3 weeks later cannot have been commited by the same man.
[...]
The differences found between Martha’s murder and the others can be explained by the arguments already mentioned. The killer learned, improved, had to adapt himself to the different circumstances, victims, etc."
So let me get this straight; you are allowed to come up with explanations for the circumstances regarding the murder, but I am not?
Your descriptions of how the killer is reasoning while learning by trial and error, is nothing but pure personal speculation, but when I try to theorise about the Bank holidays and the larger amount of customers, that is not OK?
You're trying to run this discussion on your own special terms and I don't like it.
"I’ll say it once again, you are envisaging a fully-fledged, know all from the very beginning, type of killer."
Yes, I do not hold that for impossible, since those actually do exist.
"Well, apart from considering Mr Begg an excellent researcher, [...] “Her murder was frenzied and horrendous, her sexual organs a particular focus…”
Yes, Mr Begg is an excellent researcher and in my view one of the best.
But that is not the point. The point is that you use an emotional expression and elaboration as facts. Those are Begg's words and an artistic elaboration on the author's part, but it is hardly facts.
You are the one who initially said we should stick to facts here in order to reach a certain degree of objectivity, but all you do is referring to second hand sources and second hand interpretations.
And no, I although I saw the body diagram of Tabram in the dissertation section, I actually do primarly read and rely on the first hand sources.
"Martha’s killer didn’t only strangle her. He went on to butch her in a dreadful manner (even for those people who were used to seeing so much violence), carry out some post-mortem activities, etc. And sorry, all those things taken together are not something that can be called a ‘common aproach’."
No, you are twisting my words.
I said that strangulation is a common approach, and I meant this in the context of its efficiancy. I have never said that strangulation together with stabbing is a common approach, although it is not a very unique crime either.
"Sorry, but I can't agree with that. Let's see:
“She was lying on her back, her skirts raised almost to her stomach (…) Her hands, which were open, lay by her sides and her legs were extended and a little apart (…) Cross and Paul had partly pulled ker skirts down and they were now a little above ker knees”. –Sugden, 1998, p.36, 38.
Glenn, Nichols also reflected the same pattern. Their clothes were also turned up as far as the stomach or centre of the body. The same as Martha."
True, I had forgotten about that and I can accept that argument.
But still, does this necessarily mean that it is a deliberate common 'signature' on the killer's part? Or is it a natural result of the crime? After | | | |
