|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 8:24 am: |       |
Ever since I became interested in the whole Jack the Ripper case, the specific case of Martha Tabram has struck me as one of the more interesting facets of the case. And I've had a strong hunch that, whether or not she was an actual victim of Jack himself, that somehow her murder holds a vital key to the whole mystery. Indeed, if she wasn't a Ripper victim, that in itself presents such an oddity (in a case rife with oddities) that in itself it's worth taking a closer look at.
Recently I've come to a conclusion regarding Tabram which I believe may shed some light on the more general issues of this case. No, I haven't concluded that Tabram was a a victim, nor have I concluded that she wasn't a victim. Rather, what I've concluded is that the question of her as a victim of Jack is closely tied to another question which has more general application to the case as a whole. Namely, it highlights a specific question regarding the Ripper's motives, a question with two possible answers and one which, depending which answer you choose, will either support Tabram as a Ripper victim or detract from that possibility.
To cut to the chase: The question is this, were the murders/mutilations an end in themselves OR was there a strong element of "playing to the public" in his motivations? (Note: I realize that's a false dichotomy as written; obviously the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. What I mean to say is that either the murders/mutilations were committed strictly for the sake of murder/mutilation or that there were other motivations involved as well, specifically a desire to shock the community with his actions.)
So how does this relate to Tabram? Simple, the murder of Tabram shares several similarities to the canonical murders, but most of these similarities are in the manner in which the victim is displayed rather than in the actual technique of killing/mutilating. To wit: she was found "in the open" (so to speak, even though she was technically indoors) where anyone could stumble upon her, and she was lying (in a pool of blood) on her back with her legs spread and her clothing up as if she had just had sexual intercourse. So, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to me that IF the motivation was specifically to shock people upon discovery of the corpse, then Tabram's murder is essentially no different than the other murders, as he used the same basic idea (with some modification regarding specific mutilation techniques) to accomplish the same end. From this standpoint, it makes little sense to argue that disemboweling and stabbing are mutually contradictory methods, as (if the intent is simply to shock people) the specific form the mutilations took may have been an afterthought. If on the other hand the mutilations themselves were the end he was trying to accomplish, then the case for Tabram as a Ripper victim becomes much weaker.
So the question comes down to whether or not the Ripper was exclusively killing for the sake of killing/mutilating or whether his stronger motivation was for shocking the public. And I believe a strong, albeit inconclusive, case could be made for the latter. Specifically, I believe the murder of Annie Chapman supports this view, as it was in broad daylight (more or less) in someone's backyard. Other canonical victims could go either way, consistent with either scenario, but Chapman's murder exhibited a strong degree of daring which suggests to me that he was "showing off" so to speak, taking very high risks in order to accomplish his deed. Perhaps the same could be said for the murder of Eddowes, although it might not be quite as obviously so. The other victims, however, don't necessarily point either way. Certainly, each one of them was shocking in their own way, but they need not necessarily have been intentionally shocking. But the case of Chapman (and possibly Eddowes) shows a strong indication that it was.
In closing, none of this argues conclusively that Tabram was a victim of JTR, even if it could be established conclusively that his motivations involved the thrill of sending a shock-wave through the community. But I believe that establishing one issue will necessarily provide strong support for the other issue, mutually supportive claims as it were. To put it simply:
IF the motive was shocking the public, THEN it's probable that Tabram was Jack's first victim.
And conversely:
IF Tabram was Jack's victim, THEN it's probable that his motive involved shocking the public.
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 325
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
Hi Randy,
First off, I think it’s a good idea to try a different look on (aspects of) the case, like you did. As long as you stick to facts, you never know what insights, if any, such an approach yields.
Regarding your approach, I for one believe that the Ripper’s main need was satisfied by the mutilations themselves. I think his main drive was hatred of women and anger towards them and that his main goal was to destroy the women he killed, while at the same time they may have satisfied his (extremely awkward) curiosity in the female body.
The fact that he killed outside and left his victims there for all to see IMHO was not so much a result of him wanting to shock the public, but more a result of him acting on impulse rather than having carefully planned each and every murder. What I think should also be taken into account here are the conditions the Ripper was living in. He was probably a local man who didn’t have a place of his own where he could have killed his victims, and it’s evenly unlikely that he had any means of transportation at his disposal, which he could have used to dispose of the bodies somewhere more suitable. I think the Ripper may have become more careful by the time he killed Kelly.
Although I don’t feel the Ripper cared much for what the public felt or thought – I think he was more concerned with himself (inwardly directed) - and as a result wasn’t looking for notoriety, to him the shock effect may have been a welcome ‘byproduct’ of his murders, but I’m quite confident that it wasn’t his main objective.
To me however, this doesn’t mean that Tabram probably wasn’t a Ripper victim. I’m not saying that she was, I’m just not excluding her as a result of your concept/idea. Recently, I saw a TV programme about Ted Bundy. A police officer who had been involved in the case and who had interviewed Bundy (I don’t remember his name) said that he had worked on several serial killer cases and he found that it’s not uncommon for serial killers to sort of start off ‘by accident’. They get into a situation where they are suddenly triggered to act and end up killing on impulse. Such attacks and murders don’t necessarily have to be very much like the ones that follow. Although I’m unsure of it, Tabram’s case may have been an example of such an ‘accidental’ start.
The reasons for including Tabram as a Ripper victim to me would be that she was killed in the very heart of the triangle formed by the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes crime scenes, that she was killed only three weeks prior to Nichols (which is little under the Ripper’s average cooling off period), the position she was found in with her skirts pushed up to the centre of her body, the amount of ‘knife work’ done on her and that the lower part of the body was attacked.
If we apply these criteria on all the victims mentioned on this site, besides Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, we would be left with Tabram, Kelly and McKenzie. To me, Kelly was almost certainly a Ripper victim. The dissimilarities between her and the other 3 are perfectly explicable, so, as far as I’m concerned, little doubt remains that she didn’t fall victim to the Ripper. The reasons which make McKenzie doubtful as a Ripper victim are that the wounds she sustained were clearly less severe than the ones inflicted on the earlier Ripper victims, and that she was killed over 8 months after Mary Jane Kelly. I feel she may have been the victim of a copycat killer. However, this can’t be said of Tabram, who, for the reasons stated above may have been a Ripper victim in my opinion.
All the best,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
Hi Frank and Randy,I still think that because Martha Tabram was
a]murdered in the epicentre of his "killing fields" or "comfort zone" if you prefer and
b]because there was afrenzied attack on the lower half of her body and
c]the suggestive and offensive positioning of her legs
that Martha Tabram was one of his victims.
If not then the ripper was stimulated by this murder to "have a go" himself.
Its always seeemed to me that the ripper was enjoying displaying his prey and that this was a large and significant part of his "act".His way of communicating his "reasons" and anticipating all the shock/horror that would ensue.
This was very clear to in the case of Mary Kelly
leaving her body positioning in such a way that anyone looking through the window would be greeted by the "signature" leg positions and all the horrific mutilation at the same time.And this is what happened with those that witnessed the scene were traumatised and had flash-backs for years to come as described by Walter Dew detective.
I don"t believe any of it was "accidental" he took risks yes but he never got caught. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 11:18 am: | |
I think if his goal was to shock it was because he was angry at a person, a group, an institution or society in general. Somebody did something to him and it left him in a state of simmering rage. "I'll fix them. I'll give them something they'll never forget" The idea of the Tabram killing being an accidental unplanned start has a lot of appeal. It explains why all the others were killed differently from Tabram. He had time to plan the next ones. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 9:43 am: | |
Would someone mind clarifying what is meant by "planning"?.
I would have thought the location of Tabram's murder was somewhat more secluded than that of Nichols or Chapman.
It does appear that Tabram's killer had the required 'tools', be it one knife or two, he certainly came equipped and chose a reasonably private spot, or maybe this was the victims choice.
The only difference I can see of any significance was that Tabram was stabbed to death whereas the others were subject to systematic, almost ritual slicing & mutilations.
Isn't that more indicative of motive than planning?.
Regards, Jon
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2892
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:42 am: | |
Re motive, in the course of a long article in the "Semi Weekly Age" (Ohio) Oct 23rd 1888, there is this suggested explanation for the Eddowes facial mutilation :
Robert |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 115
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
Robert , thats what profiler David Canter might call a case of ' evolving M.O. '.
In his book ' Criminal Shadows ' Cantor tells of police taking a victim of rapist John Duffy to court when Duffy was appearing on unrelated assault charges. The victim didn't recognise Duffy , but Duffy recognised her - and he was determined that he wouldn't put himself in the same danger again. Starting with his next victim , Maartje Tambozer , Duffy graduated to killing his victims after he had raped them.
Lets not forget that the Ripper had been spotted when he was trying to kill Liz Stride , not just by Israel Schwartz but possibly by Nathan Shine as well. This could well have made him change his MO/signature , leading to an attempt to obliterate the features of his next victim Eddowes so no-one could be sure he had been seen with her.
(Message edited by simonowen on August 29, 2004) |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Robert, descriptions given in the press are in the majority based on what a person wore, not their facial features, so I think the reasoning given is flawed.
Simon, we cannot agree on whether Stride was even a victim of the Ripper, so any inferences deduced from her murder are speculatory at best.
Regards, Jon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2896
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
Hi Simon, Jon
I don't say I agree with the item - only posting it. 
I tend to think Liz was a JTR victim, but that Jack wasn't Schwartz's man. Still, it's intriguing to imagine his reaction if he had in fact been seen in Berner St.
Jon, I hear what you say about witnesses, but if Jack was cool and calculating (a big "if") would he have stopped to think "I'm better off making off with her clothes than slashing her face, because witness descriptions tend to focus on clothes"?
Robert |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Yes Robert, I may be guilty of reasoning too 'deep' for spur-of-the-moment actions.
But....I don't even consider the mutilations go anywhere close to hiding her identity.
Because he evidently had time to 'nick' her eyelids I bet he would have had time to remove her face with a slice or two. Somehow I don't think hiding her identity was foremost on his mind, the cuts were not that intense.
But, I have no reasoning to offer as an alternate.
Ok, I lie.
Sometime ago I postulated that the killer may have only been reacting to press reports.
Initially the killer is labelled a maniac, insane, etc, then following the response by Dr Phillips on the Chapman murder the suggestion is offered that this killer is 'experienced'.
Quite possibly this killer was reacting to the change of opinion in the press, on the one hand he removes a kidney from inside the membrane 'carefully' which takes some knowledge, then he slashes the face in a 'maniac' fashion.
Showing a Jekyll & Hyde character?.
Regards, Jon |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 116
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Jon , I think we are on fairly safe ground with concluding that Elizabeth Stride was killed by the Ripper now , unless of course you believe in a theory that doesn't include her...
The similarities between the suspect seen by Nathan Shine and Lawende's suspect suggest it was the same man involved in both the Stride and Eddowes cases.
Maybe if given time our killer would have done a better job mutilating Eddowes's face than he did , he certainly made a good job when he killed Kelly...
I think to dismiss this idea on the grounds that Stride may not have been a Ripper victim ( is there anyone who believes she wasn't ? If so , why ? ) is a bit pedantic - this idea deserves more consideration in my opinion.
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 8:31 pm: | |
Simon, what assurance do you have that the couple seen by Lawende was Eddowes & 'Jack'?. They were not the only couple in the vicinity of Mitre Sq. that night.
And, considering there is a strong opinion that the man seen by Mrs Long with Annie Chapman in Hanbury St. "simply had to be" 'Jack', and that same opinion holds that there is precious little similarity between him and Lawende's 'man', then we are still waffling in uncertainties, are we not.?
Wha-daya-think, Simon?
Jon |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2101
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 8:51 pm: | |
Jon,
Good points. I agree.
Simon,
I would hardly bet that surely on that Stride was a Ripper victim. She could be, of course, if we want to believe in the "Diemschutz interruption theory", but stranger coincidences have happened (the Stride--Eddowes murder connection).
If the man seen by Schwartz was her killer (which is quite probable), then I seriously doubt that she was a victim of the Ripper. This is hardly a credible behaviour from an otherwise elusive serial killer.
Basing any theory on witness descriptions is quite dangerous -- people's general ability to describe a person correctly is usually quite unreliable, so discussing similarities is to wade in deep waters.
The most reliable account we have of the killer is probably -- as Jon just stated -- Elisabeth Long's, not because of the man's appearance but because of that the timing as well as the location fits well for him being the murderer -- he can't really be confused with someone else.
And, as has been pointed out, his description differ on almost every point from Lawende's (for whatever that's worth).
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Simon, from the detailed reconstructions and timelines done on the recollections of witnesses present in Berner St. right AT the time of the murder, I do not recall any 'mystery-man' unaccounted for, especially a scarpering teenager.
Anyone seen hotfooting it down Berner St. AT 1:00 am would most certainly have been mentioned by the rest of those present, doncha-think?
Regards, Jon |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 117
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:11 pm: | |
Well , this still leaves us with the marks on Eddowes's face , for which there must be some explanation !
What I say is hard to prove , but don't dismiss the idea out of hand because it is true that the violence shown to the victim DOES escalate between Eddowes and Kelly. The MO changes : an indoor crime scene , massive facial and bodily mutilation , severance of the breasts , arrangement of severed body parts etc. Now , theres got to be a reason for the change in the MO from outdoors to indoors , and it would be logical for the killer to move indoors because he had been seen.
Don't dismiss Nathan Shine as an unreliable witness either , I think its more likely that Stride was killed at 12.45 than 1am and that leaves 15 minutes between Schwartz and Diemschutz.
Glenn , yes it could be a coincidence with Stride and Eddowes being killed on the same night , but then in theory all the murders could have been commited by different killers and it could all be coincidence ! We must draw the line somewhere !
Simon ( whose mouse has just broken ! ) |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 267
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:12 pm: | |
The "mutilation to prevent identification" theory just isn't borne out by what facts we have about the murders. Certainly not if we are to credit JtR with any cunning and rationality.
To begin with, Eddowes's face was not particularly mutilated: a piece of ear gone, her nose sliced and the two strange nicks under the eyes. Moreover, if JtR was sentient enough to follow the reports of his outrages, he would have realized it was their clothing and their possessions that always started the trail to identification of the victims (in the case of Eddowes a pawn ticket). And Stride, who was the least marked of all, proved initially the most difficult to identify and was even the subject of a misidentification.
Finally, the one victim who suffered the most facial mutilation was Mary Kelly. Unless one is willing to muck about the fever swamps of consiracy speculation and suggest the body in Miller's Court was a plant to enable Kelly to start a new life, the mutilation to Kelly's face would seem pointless as an attempt to prevent discovery since she was murdered in her own room.
Don.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2102
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 6:39 am: | |
Hi Simon,
"... but then in theory all the murders could have been commited by different killers and it could all be coincidence ! We must draw the line somewhere !"
He... that is usually my line! 
Well, hardly all the killings -- there must be something pointing in such a direction; there are a lot of things to consider here. As I said, if you consider the assaulting man seen by Schwartz to be her killer (as you probably do, since you go for 12.54?), then I think we -- in my mind -- could discount her as a Ripper victim. That rather clumsy, rowdy behaviour -- attacking someone in full view with spectators in the street and shouting to people across the street -- is not the behaviour of a serial killer who has eluded the police.
I see a prostitute--customer/pimp argument as a probable answer, not to mention Michael Kidney as a possible suspect.
If Kelly was a Ripper victim, it is most likely to assume that the switch to indoors could be a result of two factors:
1. Sheer coincidence; he was set on Kelly, and she just happened to have her own room.
2. The police and the vigilance groups had intensified their activities; the police had increased their manpower and he probably would have felt it rather difficult to operate in the way he had done before; indoors would have to be a more safe solution.
I for my part, don't think Kelly was a Ripper victim, but that's another debate.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 8:52 am: | |
Donald, - exactly, I agree entirely with your comments.
Glenn, - Everything you write, ditto, ditto, etc. we are in perfect agreement here.
Getting back to "Motive" with respect to the murder of Martha Tabram, if anyone has read 'The Boston Strangler' by Gerold Franks, pp 387-391 cover the murder of Beverly Samans.
This was one victim that he stabbed to death in a similar fashion to what we read was done to Tabram. Samans was stabbed multiple times in the upper chest and throat area, the reason given by DeSalvo (or originated with Nasser) was that she was taunting him making him feel inadequate, "she wouldn't shut up!!" he said, it was his reaction to her verbal taunts that caused him to reach for a nearby knife and "I hit her with it, several times, I kept hitting her".
Sounds like a means of realease for pent up frustration and may be precisely why Tabram bears those same type of wounds.
Regards, Jon
(Wounds on the body of Beverly Samans -
"Though it appeared that Beverly Samans had been strangled, death had come as a result of stabbing - twenty two times, four in the throat, eighteen in the left breast where the stab wounds described an unmistakable bulls-eye design - a large circle enclosing a smaller circle with a final stab wound in the centre")
(Message edited by Jon on August 30, 2004) |
stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Hi im new to this im 23 and im trying to solve who jack the ripper was. one thing that puzzles me is why go all the way out to Bucks row to kill mary ann nichols but kill the others in a close area which goes to show if im right he travled. now back then the only people who travled around were the well to do who had there own carrages or travel in taxi version of a carrage which cost money. now the only people who had money like that were
1)royals
2)doctors
3)surgens
4)the law (police ect ect)
now this makes me belive that it could be someone who had one of these jobs or it could have been some one who inhereted the money if that is the case that they inhereted the money then we will go down a different path
im hopeing i can find who the suspect was but in being truthfull i dont think we ever will it could have been someone just visiting london i dont think there is enough evidence around or sources to give us the lead we need but, i have a feeling there is something right under our noses that we are missing
Stephen
Stephen |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:42 pm: | |
One small note here:
"From this standpoint, it makes little sense to argue that disemboweling and stabbing are mutually contradictory methods, as (if the intent is simply to shock people) the specific form the mutilations took may have been an afterthought."
By "afterthought" I'm referring to a thought occurring to him some time after the murder of Tabram. I.e., what I'm specifically suggesting here is that the Ripper was capable of learning from previous mistakes, and he realized from the experience that stabbing someone 39 times requires a whole lot of time and energy and doesn't accomplish nearly as much as a more direct "ripping" would.
The question of throat-cutting OTOH, seems to be very problematic for many here, but personally I don't see it as a major problem. After all, throat-cutting isn't exactly rocket science, and he certainly didn't invent the procedure. So his "graduating" to it in such a short period of time doesn't present any major difficulties IMO. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi Stephen, welcome.
You set yourself quite a task young fella, good grief, you wern't even born when some of us started researching this mystery, and we arn't any nearer placing a name to 'Jack' than we were when we started....so don't hold your breath
On a more serious note...Bucks Row is not so 'way out', as you put it. Unless of course you are basing your suspect in the west end or somewhere.
The most westerly murder site was Mitre Square, the most easterly was Bucks Row (considering the canonical 5) and though you may believe these locations appear quite distant on period maps, those maps are quite deceiving. Bucks Row is only a short walk from Mitre Square, only a matter of minutes at a brisk pace.
The killer certainly had no need of a carriage to journey to all the murder sites, providing he lived in or near the East End. And, contrary to popular opinion, the class of victim was not the type to hop into a 'classy' carriage, these were street whores of the lowest order, not your 'middle-class'(?) west-end whore, or celebrity-whore.
The victims were largely old(er), ill, drunk, poor, and not what we might call 'enticing', certainly not for the 'upper-class' gents.
The victims were of the type to seek clients from their own class, and thats likely, in my opinion, where we will find 'Jack'.
Regards, Jon |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
Randy, you may be right in your comment, below:
"The question of throat-cutting OTOH, seems to be very problematic for many here, but personally I don't see it as a major problem. After all, throat-cutting isn't exactly rocket science, and he certainly didn't invent the procedure."
Consider, if you will, if I tell you that there were lots of 'Ripper-type' murders all over the world, women with their throats cut are not uncommon. Would you consider every female with her throat cut to be a potential Ripper victim, or would you try to differentiate between these murders in any way you could to reduce the numbers to a more managable figure?.
Obviously, Jack did not tour the world cutting throats.
Any forensic expert will tell you that 'how' a weapon is used is likely just as important as the 'type' of weapon used. Any variation in detail can be a potential clue to solving a mystery or to lead you in the right direction.
Interpretation is everything in a case that has so few facts to rely on.
It is a 'fact' that Tabram suffered 39 stab wounds to her body, but it is not a fact that two weapons were used, that is only a deduction based on interpretation.
It is a 'fact' that Nichols had her throat cut twice, but it is not a 'fact' that this caused her death, that once again is a deduction based on medical knowledge...and of course, no reasonable alternative can be offered. We naturally 'assume' that cutting her throat was the cause of death because we all agree and understand how the interpretation is followed, but 'fact' would be the wrong word to use. It is a deduction only.
Now, when you list the 'facts' & 'deductions' known about the murders of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, you will see they are startingly similar, but differ very markedly from the 'facts' & 'deductions' known about the murder of Tabram.
What else would you use to link the murders together?, there isn't anything, no mutual friends, no 'similar' clients, no common details that we can pursue to make any link at all.
Therefore, using 'facts' & 'deductions' alone, we are left with a completely unrelated murder, unless of course someone *believes* they may still be linked *somehow* (???)
But, what can we do with that?
Regards, Jon |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 268
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 8:09 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
No common details to make a link at all??? Not sure how you came up with that. Geography, overkill, time of night, occupation, body position, what she was doing immediately before the murder, date of murder, etc. are all in common with the later killings. In fact, other than the difference in the attack, they are quite similar.
But, regardless, if you break a murder down to focus on one specific detail and focus on that and only that (in this case, the throat cuts) and then rule out any other murder that misses that detail then you are in a pickle. If you applied the same deductions to cases in which we have caught the killer and know which victims are his and are not, you'd be missing a significant percentage of the ones we know were by the same killer.
And I also don't know that it's "obvious" Jack didn't tour the world cutting throats. The cattleboat theory was well accepted by the police at the time and there's nothing to say that it's impossible. Some serial killers do move around quite a bit. Jack may or may not have been one who did.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2103
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 8:52 pm: | |
"But, regardless, if you break a murder down to focus on one specific detail and focus on that and only that (in this case, the throat cuts) and then rule out any other murder that misses that detail then you are in a pickle."
One specific detail? What kinds of connections do we have, really? Let's look at the so called "similarities".
I can accept two of them, namely geography; Tabram was indeed killed at the centre of the Ripper murders, but this could just as easily be a result of the fact that it was in these parts of Whitechapel and Aldgate the prostitutes hung around. The other one is Body position. Tabram seem to have been found in the same position as many of the other victims, but then on the other hand this position is incredibly common in numerous murder cases, which are sexually related, so this is not a clear-cut thing, and definetly not something we can consider to be a unique trait for the Ripper's signature.
The other "similarities" are really quite irrelevant.
Occupation (prostitution) means nothing, since those are probably the most common murder victims by unknown killers, with no apparent personal relation to the killer. Their line of occupation must be the most hazardous one, with an incredibly low safety rate.
Time of night. Yeah sure, this is probably the largest stretch of them all. The time in question is probably when nearly all murders occur. As far as similarities goes, this is nothing.
Overkill. Yes, but not in the same way as the Ripper murders. There is no similarity in this whatsoever. In Tabram's case it seems to be overkill done in a frenzy; while the Ripper murders and mutilations appears to be done according to a certain deliberate scheme.
So I wouldn't call the missing throat cut the only problem here. Actually, the dissimilarities are greater than the similarities.
Regardless if Tabram was a Ripper victim or not -- and I am not completely convinced either way -- we are supposed to accept that the Ripper does a frenzied stab killing and then only little more than three weeks later all of a sudden evolves a ready-made MO and signature involving throat cuts and mutilations out of the blue, a method that appears to become rather consistent for at least three murders.
If the time lapse were a bit longer, I would not have the same problem with this, and then I would have less trouble with this as a sign of an evolving killer, but three weeks in order to come up with this method and urge to mutilate out of the blue, is just a bit too hard to swallow.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 162
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:29 am: | |
Hello all,
Glenn writes: 'If the man seen by Schwartz was her killer (which is quite probable), then I seriously doubt that she was a victim of the Ripper. This is hardly a credible behaviour from an otherwise elusive serial killer.'
I believe it is very unlikely that Stride's attacker was also her killer, judging by the evidence, though I do agree with Glenn that the man seen attacking Stride is not likely at all to have been JTR. A close study of the evidence indicates a time of death much closer to 1a.m. (if not right at 1a.m.) than 12:45.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2104
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 5:36 am: | |
Hi Thomas,
We better not turn this into a Stride thread, and I seem to remember that we've had a similar discussion earlier a year ago.
I used to be the very same opinion as you, but I have reversed my thoughts about this a bit.
If we want to buy the interruption theory, a death closer to 1:00 a.m. must be accepted, but the problem with this is that it is a rather narrow time frame for Jack to work upon, with some problematic witnesses that never really saw anyone on Berner Street, not least Stride herself.
I used to get a lot of critisism for my notion that it would be possible for a second attacker to arrive on the scene after the assaulting man. I still can't rule that possibility out completely, but it's a fact that after this scene we don't have that many observing Stride on Berner Street. The biggest problem lies in Mrs Maxwell's testimony, as I see it.
But as I said, that's another thread.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
(CAPITALS for emphasis only)
Hi Dan.
Glenn prettywell took the words right out of my mouth.
It only remains for me to add.
When you consider 'similarities' in order to link a handfull of murders, the one's which are usefull and worthy of note must each, and at the same time, meet two criteria.
- A similarity must be some detail which, on the one hand, DISTINCTLY *connects* Tabram to Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes WHILE on the other hand DISTICTLY *separates* Tabram from EVERYBODY ELSE.
None of those suggested by yourself do any of that, thereby all you show by :
- Geography
- Occupation
- Time of night
..etc, was that Tabram was likely a local prostitute,....and we know that already.
(Excellent response Glenn)
Regards, Jon
P.S.
And I felt sure I was going to get 'beat-up' over the "Throat-cut/cause-of-death/not-a-fact" point, I guess I got away with it this time
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 327
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 7:02 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
“One specific detail? What kinds of connections do we have, really? Let's look at the so called "similarities".“
However one looks at them, they remain similarities. Whether they’re all significant is an entirely different thing.
”I can accept two of them, namely geography; Tabram was indeed killed at the centre of the Ripper murders, but this could just as easily be a result of the fact that it was in these parts of Whitechapel and Aldgate the prostitutes hung around.”
Until someone (preferably more than one person) can point out to me that the Ripper’s killing zone was clearly rougher territory than the rest of the East End, I think geography is a significant similarity, as the poor and rough East End was much bigger than the triangle formed by the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes crime scenes.
“The other one is Body position. Tabram seem to have been found in the same position as many of the other victims, but then on the other hand this position is incredibly common in numerous murder cases, which are sexually related, so this is not a clear-cut thing, and definetly not something we can consider to be a unique trait for the Ripper's signature.”
The body position Tabram was found in may be an incredibly common position in sexually related murder cases, but still it sets Tabram’s murder distinctly apart from normal murders, but not from those of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and McKenzie.
“Occupation (prostitution) means nothing, since those are probably the most common murder victims by unknown killers, with no apparent personal relation to the killer. Their line of occupation must be the most hazardous one, with an incredibly low safety rate.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Time of night. Yeah sure, this is probably the largest stretch of them all. The time in question is probably when nearly all murders occur. As far as similarities goes, this is nothing.”
I wouldn’t have put it like you did, but basicly I agree.
“Overkill. Yes, but not in the same way as the Ripper murders. There is no similarity in this whatsoever. In Tabram's case it seems to be overkill done in a frenzy; while the Ripper murders and mutilations appears to be done according to a certain deliberate scheme.”
I agree that the way the overkill was done differs from the rest, but considering the words of Deputy Coroner Collier, the overkill displayed on Tabram wasn’t common at all in those days and parts and so, overkill as such also clearly sets the Tabram murder apart from others, but not from the five I mentioned above.
“If the time lapse were a bit longer, I would not have the same problem with this, and then I would have less trouble with this as a sign of an evolving killer, but three weeks in order to come up with this method and urge to mutilate out of the blue, is just a bit too hard to swallow.”
I agree that (in the case of Tabram being a Ripper victim) the Ripper as an evolving killer seems unlikely, but as far as I’m concerned not necessarily because of the time (or lack of it) that passed between Tabram and Nichols, but rather because no other murder took place, which the Ripper could have used to ‘shape up’ his MO and signature, so that they would have looked more like they had become in Nichols’ case.
However, I do think the scenario of an ‘accidental’ murder, like I wrote a couple of days ago, is a feasible one. It has been known to happen. In that case the Ripper would have already been fantasising about killing women and how he would do that, but he just wouldn't have thought about actually acting out those fantasies - yet.
So, in Tabram’s case he may not have gone out with murder on his mind. He may just have wanted to go out, like lots of nights before and have a couple of pints, maybe to end up in an alley roughing up a prostitute a little. But then, he may have found himself unexpectedly triggered by Tabram, who may have said or done something specific, which made him kill her on impulse. And because he was mad as hell, (mentally) ill prepared and inexperienced, he was perhaps able to act out only parts of his fantasies and split before he got caught. Like I wrote earlier, such ‘accidental’ starts of a series don’t seem to be uncommon for serial killers. If I remember well, Ed Kemper started off rather clumsily, too.
With Tabram the Ripper may have passed a thresh-hold and decided to try if he could act out more of his fantasies. In that case, 3 weeks don’t seem particularly short to me. In fact, 3 weeks seems to fit rather well with the Ripper’s cooling off periods.
Another thing to consider is that, although it’s possible that Kelly and McKenzie were killed by copycat killers, this obviously cannot have been the case with Tabram. If she wasn’t a Ripper victim, the Ripper’s murders couldn’t have influenced Tabram’s killer in any way, which can’t be said of whoever killed Kelly and McKenzie, in case he wasn’t the Ripper.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2106
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
As Jon says, the "similarites" are so weak that they become meaningless.
I don't know London or East End in detail, but like in other poorer districts of the larger cities there were streets that were rough and those that were more respectable. Prostitutes focused on certain areas or different streets, like they do today. I would hardly consider all of East End to harbour these activities equally much. Such examples are Dorset Street and Thrawl Street, which were considered among the worst.
I don't believe in scientifically unsupported profiler garbage like "comfort zones" and "triangles". As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing.
Take a walk up to Durward Street and Mitre Square, and you would hardly feel that you're in the middle of "Ripper country". All such intellectual elaborations are constructed in my view, and depending on how we use them, we can show practically everything.
"The body position Tabram was found in may be an incredibly common position in sexually related murder cases, but still it sets Tabram’s murder distinctly apart from normal murders, but not from those of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and McKenzie."
That's true, but then the Tabram killing wasn't ordinary either. But that doesen't mean that the Ripper did it. This was a bank holiday. London's East End was every weekend littered with people from abroad, arriving on boats on one way or the other. Sailors, soldiers, dock workers. It was holiday. People had money to spend on prostitutes, and this is also a common treat for sailors ashore. Surely there would one of them that may have had a violent temper and a deranged sexual disposition, also considering the influence of alcohol? I don't believe that in all East End the Ripper would have been the only one carrying such wicked traits.
Good that you agree about the "occupation" and "time of night" thing.
"However, I do think the scenario of an ‘accidental’ murder, like I wrote a couple of days ago, is a feasible one. It has been known to happen. In that case the Ripper would have already been fantasising about killing women and how he would do that, but he just wouldn't have thought about actually acting out those fantasies - yet."
I am doubtful about this, Frank. We still have the problem of developing these traits in a period of three weeks. We would at least see a bit more details corroborating with the other murders, although not in the same degree. The Tabram case, where we see stabbing (which more seem to originate from rage rather than sexual or demented fantasies) and no indication of mutilation at all -- and no throat-cutting -- has really no part of his fantasies displayed; if there were, I could buy your reasoning. I hear what you say about him maybe not wanting to kill this victim and that it was accidental, but we still have the three week period to consider. To develop a complete method and signature -- which since becomes remarkable consistent for at least three murders -- out of the blue three weeks later seems not plausible to me. I can't rule it out completely, but it doesne't ring true to me. I find it quite hard to find the term "cooling off" relevant here.
"Another thing to consider is that, although it’s possible that Kelly and McKenzie were killed by copycat killers, this obviously cannot have been the case with Tabram. If she wasn’t a Ripper victim, the Ripper’s murders couldn’t have influenced Tabram’s killer in any way, which can’t be said of whoever killed Kelly and McKenzie, in case he wasn’t the Ripper."
I have never suggested that Tabram was a copy-cat. As you say, it wouldn't add up.
Instead I would reverse it and look at it from the opposite direction, actually. I find it quite possible, that the Tabram murder (especially with the media coverage earlier on with the Emma Smith murder) actually may have influenced and triggered him into starting the whole thing.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
Jon Smyth writes:
"What else would you use to link the murders together?, there isn't anything, no mutual friends, no 'similar' clients, no common details that we can pursue to make any link at all.
Therefore, using 'facts' & 'deductions'alone, we are left with a completely unrelated murder, unless of course someone*believes* they may still be linked *somehow* (???)"
First of all, I want to make perfectly clear that I think it's good that there's controversy about whether or not Tabram was a bonafide Ripper victim. Personally, I think too many people have their minds made up about it, one way or the other. That indeed is exactly why I posted my comments.
However, I think you're trivializing the many similarities between Tabram and the others, in order to dismiss her case too quickly. First and foremost, the date and location are enough to grant her at least a reasonable probability that she was one of his victims. The fact that the period of time between Tabram's and Nichols' murders fits neatly within the general pattern of later cooling off periods is significant. The fact that George Yard is centrally located in relationship to all the canonical murders is quite suggestive. And again, the way the body is displayed is quite similar. (And as Dan Norder has given a fairly good summary of the similarities, I won't go any further here). Suffice it to say, the "facts and deductions alone" as you put it don't point to a completely unrelated murder. They're simply not conclusive at this point in time.
You also write:
"Any forensic expert will tell you that 'how' a weapon is used is likely just as important as the 'type' of weapon used. Any variation in detail can be a potential clue to solving a mystery or to lead you in the right direction.
Interpretation is everything in a case that has so few facts to rely on."
Indeed, the variation between Tabram's murder and the others may indeed be a potential clue to solving the mystery. But let's not conflate a "potential clue" with a necessarily strong justification for dismissal. Remember that, IF Tabram was a Ripper victim, she was likely his first. And the first in any series of murders is the one most likely to be atypical in M.O., as the killer hasn't yet perfected his technique.
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Glenn Andersson writes:
"Regardless if Tabram was a Ripper victim or not -- and I am not completely convinced either way-- we are supposed to accept that the Ripper does a frenzied stab killing and then only little more than three weeks later all of a sudden evolves a ready-made MO and signature involving throat cuts and mutilations out of the blue, a method that appears to become rather consistent for at leastthree murders.
If the time lapse were a bit longer, I would not have the same problem with this, and then I would have less trouble with this as a sign of an evolving killer, but three weeks in order to come up with this method and urge to mutilate out of the blue, is just a bit too hard to swallow."
I think your point is well-taken, but... Consider that Nichols' disemboweling wasn't exactly successful. I.e., even this "ready-made MO" may have needed some work at this point in time. And I think you may be assuming a bit much with the "urge to mutilate" coming out of the blue. Tabram's 39 stabs could just as easily be interpreted as the very same "urge to mutilate" -- and perhaps an act which left him highly dissatisfied afterwards, enough so that it forced him to reconsider his methods. Whether he could do so in three weeks or three months seems irrelevant in this context. All it would really require is a single stroke of inspiration.
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
And lest I forget...
Frank van Oploo writes:
"Although I don’t feel the Ripper cared much for what the public felt or thought –I think he was more concerned with himself (inwardly directed) - and asa result wasn’t looking for notoriety, to him the shock effect may have beena welcome ‘byproduct’ of his murders, but I’m quite confident that it wasn’this main objective."
I should clarify my point here. I'm really not suggesting even as a remote possibility that notoriety was his main objective, per se. (Personally, I don't think that's even the least bit likely.) Rather it's more a question of, to what to degree, if any, did the public's reaction concern him, and color the manner in which he performed his deeds. To put succinctly, was there an element of the exhibitionist in his personality, or was he strictly inwardly directed as you put it.
Also I should probably emphasize that, although I'm tempted to make arguments in favor of Tabram's inclusion as a Ripper victim, the question of motive I'm bringing up here may be the more important of the two questions, as answering this question tells us more about the killer himself.
Anyway, thank you for your response, and thank everyone for their responses. Some interesting commentary here. |
Jim Richter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
This is my first post for this site.I have had an interest in this case since I was a kid in the 1960's and saw a film about the Ripper.Jon made some interesting remarks about the victims in his post.I'd like to add to that and say that these women probably became more desperate for money as the night progressed and lowered their standards(if possible)as the hour grew late.I'm sure they earned their lodging money during the course of the night and spent it on food,drink,or were robbed by their clients.I'm sure their judgement was impaired as the night passed and were willing to take chances. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 163
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 12:11 am: | |
Glenn Andersson writes:
"Regardless if Tabram was a Ripper victim or not -- and I am not completely convinced either way-- we are supposed to accept that the Ripper does a frenzied stab killing and then only little more than three weeks later all of a sudden evolves a ready-made MO and signature involving throat cuts and mutilations out of the blue, a method that appears to become rather consistent for at leastthree murders.
Although I don't fully support the idea of Tabram as Ripper victim, I should point out that there are other examples similar to what Glenn is discussing above. One that comes to mind is David 'Son of Sam' Berkowitz. He says his first attempted killing was with a knife. He attacked a woman on foot. It was such a debacle that, although he managed to stab the woman 7 times, she was released from the hospital that night! He knew then he needed a new, more effective, approach, and switched to the gun. Although, obviously, the Ripper didn't make such a drastic change, if he DID kill Tabram, it must not have been to his satisfaction, thus the change in MO. However, I'll say again, I do not fully support the idea that the Ripper killed Tabram, though it most certainly is a possibility. Another idea that I absolutely do not support, and am actually shocked to see appear under the names of some otherwise educated and educational posters, is that Mary Kelly was the victim of a copycat. That is just plum nuts. Although there's nothing subtle about Mary's death, the underlying indicators of the Ripper are all there. Her murder and murder scene are more like Chapman's than are Stride and Nichols. But I'm getting off-topic again, so I'll stop there.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Glenn, if I remember correctly, you and I and a few others, for a very short time, engaged in a conversation about Schwartz, not the Stride murder in general. However, I'd most certainly like to (on an appropriate thread, of course!). |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2107
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Hi Thomas,
No, it's not the same thing. There are a vast number of serial killers that have changed murder weapons and MO:s. There is more than a change of MO to this switch, Thomas.
There is a different modus operandi and a sudden creation of a signature to consider here -- a signature that seem to be developed -- that's right -- out of nowhere. We don't find any of those traits in the killing of Tabram. A serial killer doesen't "invent" a clearly defined method and a signature -- like the mutilations on the Ripper victims -- in three weeks from a frenzied stabbing. The idea that he wasn't satisfied with the Tabram murder and therefore had to swift doesne't cut it and certainly doesen't solve that problem.
The so called "similarities" are indeed haltering and a bit of a stretch, if you ask me.
As I said, as far as Tabram's inclusion is concerned, I am not 100% convinced either way. She could be a ripper victim after all, but to me it feels like a different killer.
The same goes for Mary Kelly, and yes, I know you think it is ludicrous, but this alternative option has also been suggested by a couple of well merited authors, so I am not the first to put forward it, and I won't be the last.
I would say there's a 50% chance for Kelly to be a domestic murder, not a Ripper killing, but that's just me. There are some interesting indications that points in this direction that can't be overlooked -- at least there is enough to keep an open mind about it.
However, I have put forward these points so many times that I don't feel it's necessary to go through it again. I can also recommend Alex Chisholm's very innovative but logical thoughts on this matter. I believe they are written down somewhere and can also be studied in Evans' and Gainey's The Lodger book.
"P.S. Glenn, if I remember correctly, you and I and a few others, for a very short time, engaged in a conversation about Schwartz, not the Stride murder in general."
That is true and that is what I meant. I think it is on the "Liz Stride -- the Murder" thread.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2108
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Randy,
"Tabram's 39 stabs could just as easily be interpreted as the very same "urge to mutilate" -- and perhaps an act which left him highly dissatisfied afterwards, enough so that it forced him to reconsider his methods."
No, I don't believe in this. It is not the same thing. The mutilations are done quite deliberately in a certain fashion and carefully outlined, and they clearly might be originating from some sort of twisted fantasies.
To me Tabram's wounds indicate a frenzied rage. I don't see this as the same person at all -- not even the same type of person.
"Whether he could do so in three weeks or three months seems irrelevant in this context. All it would really require is a single stroke of inspiration."
I would think not. This doesen't make sense to me. The mutilations were the main purpose with his killings, and therefore it doesen't ring true that they should have been developed in three weeks. The need to do them must have been there for quite some time; there would be no point for him to stab a person 39 times, because I would assume it won't give the same type of satisfaction. The time is extremely relevant in this context.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:59 am: | |
Guys,
Just a small interjection.
This is by far one of the most interesting threads I have read for weeks...many thanks.
I agree with Glenn (on the majority) except two issues bother me.
1) The explosion of murders in that area, and a small area as well, in 1888.
2) Regarding Tabram, the 3 inch 'stab wound'. Doesnt tally in with the rest of the assault. Yes, I know I harp on about it, but this wound is in the right area on Marthas body to tie in with an attempted mutilation act in conjuction with Jacks signature......or so it seems to me.
Martha may have been incompletus.
Regards
Monty
(Message edited by monty on September 01, 2004)
Ow, Ive just been doin time Sha-mone....It aint so bad !...I aint no Jack da Ripper - Dr Thomas Neill Cream |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
The wounds on Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes are very methodical, systematic, and repetative.
Strangulation is implied, Physical layout of the victim is the same, one small cut to the jugglar, one larger encircling 'slice' around the neck, followed by an almost surgical approach to opening up the abdomen,....the typical 19th century procedure used by surgeons to perform a hysterectomy.
This methodical procedure is almost a work of art for him and hints at a learned approach from a hardened professional.
The difference between Tabram's wounds and those of the later three victims are of gargantuan proportions, so some believe he 'evolved' into a more prefect style.
This suggestion I see as a vain attempt to create a link where none really exists.
We can hardly argue that "once he found a 'perfect' approach he stayed with it", when this next murder (Nichols) was unsuccessfull.
There is precious little by way of difference between each of the *3* as opposed to between Tabram and the *3*.
The first instance this 'methodical' approach was used (Nichols) he failed to get the organ, so why would he continue this 'system'?, because this was his signature, it didn't evolve from a frienzy three weeks earlier, he already had this method down pat.
In that observation, surely, there must lay a clue to his origins.
Now, the murderer of Tabram will I suspect be found among one of her majesty's finest. There are reports of soldiers using bayonets on prostitutes (Mayhew) and they are also known to have covered for each other, especially when one returned to barracks covered in blood.
Regards, Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2109
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
Monty,
Since I admit I am not that into the medical stuff, I can't comment on point. But to me that may seem as an over-interpretation of the "stab wound"; I would rather see the wound first in order to base such a deduction of it. It is quite far from the Nichol's mutilations anyway and in Tabram's case there was no throat cut either. To call the wound a possible attempt of mutilation when we have not been able to see it, besides the literary descriptions, is to go to fast, I think.
As far as the "explosion of murder", there were those anyway. 1888 seemed to have a high murder rate; and some of those we surely can't attribute to the Ripper anyway.
Apart from that, some years do see an explosion of murders. It just happens.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2110
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Jon,
I wish I could put things like you.
Applause! 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 169
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
Glenn writes: 'As I said, as far as Tabram's inclusion is concerned, I am not 100% convinced either way. She could be a ripper victim after all, but to me it feels like a different killer.'
With this, Glenn, I agree wholeheartedly. I assume, like myself, you play devil's advocate when you find yourself settling on a conclusion. Doing this, I've been able to see a scenario from all angles to find the most satisfying conclusion, and in the process, often found myself changing my mind from my original interpretation. That's why I'm still open to some extent on Tabram, but generally, discount her.
Glenn writes: The same goes for Mary Kelly, and yes, I know you think it is ludicrous, but this alternative option has also been suggested by a couple of well merited authors, so I am not the first to put forward it, and I won't be the last.
This has, in fact, been suggested a number of times, though I don't know about the "well-merited authors' part (please name them). According to some, NO ONE murdered Mary Kelly! But Kelly was, in fact, a Ripper victim. The evidence screams it. While still living, but probably unconscious, she was turned on her side, away from the killer. Her throat was then slit and her blood sprayed onto the wall. She was then layed on her back and mutilated - Eddowes on steroids style - her organs (like the items at the Chapman scene) were placed at her feet and head. An organ went missing. A hand was deliberately placed on (in) her stomach, and her head turned to one side. Glenn, my friend, no copycat gets it this dead on his first try. This was a Ripper murder, and not unlike Eddowes and Chapman at all. Look past the fact that she was killed indoors, that she was younger and was ( presumably) the last. She was a prostitue, she was working at the time of her death, she was killed just like the others, only to the extreme, in the same methods, as an active serial killer in the area. This does not, at all, look like a domestic murder. It looks like a Jack the Ripper killing. It did then, it does now. Barnett's hands, as far as the Whitechapel murders are concerned, are clean. Getting all this debris out of the way will help good and able minds such as yours to concentrate on those issues which MIGHT solve this case. I agree it's an angle that should be explored, and it has been, and came up short.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2111
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 8:28 am: | |
Hi Tom,
Regarding Kelly -- although this is certainly not the thread for it -- I am playing devil's advocat here as well, and there are reasons for it.
You are quite wrong when you say that this possibility has been explored and definitely discounted, because it hasn't. I would say this trail needs further exploration.
"...'well-merited authors' part (please name them)."
As I wrote in my post, this idea is supported as a credible alternative by Evans and Gainey in The Lodger, where they comment on Chisholm's theories. At least they find the option worth while to keep an open mind about. I would think that Evans and Gainey easily could pass for well merited authors.
I totally disagree with the Kelly murder being so similar to the others. It is not the fact that she was killed indoors that troubles me, but the fact that the approach seems different. I have said it before and I'll say it again; to me it certainly more looks like a very sloppy copy cat attempt by someone who had gained some information about the murders -- probably from the press -- but then just didn't get some details right.
The spray and large amount of blood is one thing: the Ripper was very careful in his approach not to get too much blood on him and there isn't really that much blood on the murder sites (there is some spray of blood on the fence in Hanbury Street, but apart from that very little considering the state of victims). In Miller's Court it is a completely different story; it is practically a blood bath with a lot of blood on the walls and on the floor, indicating that Mary Kelly may have been conscious during the attack and maybe also tried to defend herself. To assume that these changes is a result of the more secluded circumstances indoors, is just not good enough -- it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly just the same -- the scream of "murder!" is a sign of that this apparently was not tried succesfully.
We also have the over-excessive mutilations, that usually are referred to as a result of "his grande finale and his evolution technique reaching its full bloom". That is totally unsupported and just speculations.
Also, the womb strangely didn't seem to be of interest of the Ripper in this case, but rather the heart (if the heart was taken from the scene). There are quite a few question marks to consider, which means we can't just buy the Ripper option straight off.
Throughout crime history we have a vast number of mutilation crimes in the fashion of the Kelly murder (or even worse), that are not a part of a serial but performed by husbands or boyfriends in order to make the corps easier to identify (which of course is a misjudgement) or to blame it on a serial killer.
I am not at all sure, but I would prefer to keep an open mind about this option, since there are things that may point in such a direction. Barnett is certainly not "clean" in this respect. He had motive, he had opportunity and also a questionable alibi, that today is impossible to check.
There are no "facts" whatsoever that proves beyond doubt that Kelly was a Ripper victim -- that is no objective fact analysis talking, but rather a "wish" that she was the Ripper's grand finale. Not an objective reading of the so called "facts". To say that "The evidence screams it" is just silly beyond imagination.
But anyway, we shouldn't really turn this thread devoted to Tabram into a Kelly thread. But I'll be glad to pick this up elsewhere anytime.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:10 am: | |
Simon,
I think its more likely that Stride was killed at 12.45 than 1am
I think that is quite contradictory to what you believe about Stride being a Ripper victim. I also think that she was a Ripper victim but I believe she had only just been killed before Diemschutz entered the yard. Think of it this way, if she was a Ripper victim, why did he not attack her lower half like the others if he had 15 minutes to spare?
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 67
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Jon--
Are you saying that you think Nichols wasn't the killer's first go-round, or am I reading too much into your post?
I'm very open minded about Tabram but if we do include her then she pretty much has to be the first time this killer struck, before he had his method down.
If Nichols was first and he was that--I can think of no other way to put this-- good at the job, then where did he get this skill? This leads us down the road to doctor, butcher etc.
As I said, I really don't have a particular suspect, so I'm very much enjoying this discussion, wherever it may lead us.
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2112
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Correction of my earlier post, which should naturally say:
"Throughout crime history we have a vast number of mutilation crimes in the fashion of the Kelly murder (or even worse), that are not a part of a serial but performed by husbands or boyfriends in order to make the corps harder to identify (which of course is a misjudgement) or to blame it on a serial killer."
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2113
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:23 am: | |
Maria,
I don't think Nichols was the Ripper's first crime. I am just doubtful about Tabram's inclusion.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 02, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 120
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Sarah , to understand this you need to believe that the witness account given by Nathan Shine is correct. Its my opinion that if both Israel Schwartz and Nathan Shine saw the Ripper , the killer would have decided that it was no longer worth trying to mutilate Stride because there were too many people about , so he went to look for another victim instead. He might have thought that the Met. would have been alerted and on the lookout , so he crossed into the City to kill : frustrated by his inability to mutilate Stride he took out all his frustrations on Catherine Eddowes instead.
Its all very simple really , if you think about it. Plus Shine's description of the Ripper concurs very well with that of Lawende. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2114
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Simon,
Schwartz may have seen Stride's killer but I can bet you a million bucks that he didn't see Jack the Ripper.
As pointed out before, that man's behaviour is in no way consistent with the behaviour of a killer that has eluded the police, and continued to do so. You are basing your opinions on the strong beliefs that Stride was a Ripper victim, rather than looking at other relevant points.
To base an argument on potential and alleged corroborative witness description is dangerous and really not worth the trouble -- especially when it regards sightings at night. The human ability to describe details under these circumstances is not at all reliable. Except for the red neckerchief on the man seen by Lawende, there are really no particular features in the descriptions that sticks out of the ordinary.
Those could really fit any man in East End during the latter half of the 19th century.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
Glenn,
Jacks victims?
Personally I feel Martha is worth looking at...
....that said, I cannot make any direct link between her and any of the others except location and body position. My other links regarding the slash and the unlikelyhood of 2 or 3 killers in Whitechapel that Autumn are tenuous to say the least.
Grudgingly (though I dont know why I feel this, facts is facts), on current evidence, have to except that Martha is out of the series.
Jons excellent post above indicates that a person with direct medical knowledge could have started these murders with Polly (though not at any stage did Jon state this was his belief). Method already 'down pat' as Jon puts it.
Sure, a possibility on the MO/signature side but what about the stalking and engaging of his victim? What are peoples views on that?
Personally I feel Jack knew his way around these women, how to talk to them, coax and reassure them. Surely this side of our Serial Killer comes only through practice and therefore we are looking at an experienced John, especially at the height of these murders when these women would have been highly aware.
Monty
Ow, Ive just been doin time Sha-mone....It aint so bad !...I aint no Jack da Ripper - Dr Thomas Neill Cream |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Simon,
Actually I think you may be right. As long as the witnesses were correct of course. If the Ripper was seen struggling with her it makes sense that he would want to get away. He still killed her because she had a good close up view of him, but couldn't risk the mutilations.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
