Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[RedBundy13]

If one considers Martha Tabram as the 'first' Ripper murder (and I tend towards this belief), is it not likely that Jack would have been covered in blood from this frenzied attack? Much has been written about how Jack strangled and then slashed the throats of the canonical five in such a way that he would not be drenched in blood. However, it strikes me that it is possible that if Tabram was his first victim, he perhaps realised that he would have to find a more efficient method of killing. Hence, this might have been a 'trial' in which he was disappointed with both the amount of blood generated by frenzied stabbing, and perhaps also the lack of satisfaction he received from stabbing alone.

My theory therefore is that Tabram was Jack's 'initial' kill, and that he learned quickly that if he wished to continue his gruesome work, a cleaner method of dispatch was necessary to help avoid detection, and a more violent and invasive level of mutilation was necessary to satisfy him (whether that be sexually or merely for his own enjoyment). I'm prepared to be shot down in flames by those more erudite in the case who disagree...

I am in complete agreement with you on this one. His 1st murder and with that, his trial run. Since it is my opinion that she was his first victim, I am under the impression that, like most serial killers, he choose this location(37 George Yard) because he felt comfortable there. Most likely it was close to his house, mothers house, friend, relative or whosever house or place was near by that he had been recently staying at. He would have wanted to be sure that if things went wrong he would have been able to make a quick exit and be able to reach safety i.e. a place that he had been staying recently. My guess is that that place would have been within a half a block from 37 George Yard. So the first few houses either way on Commercial St. on either side of the road or half way to 3/4 the way down Gunthorpe St. again on either side. Look for someone between the ages of 22 and 32 who had a minor criminal record prior to the fall or '88' which progressed after the winter of '89'. Look for someone that started with simple assults and progressed to arson and murder.
That's my opinion on how we could find JtR. And I too, am prepared to be shot down by those who know more and disagree.

[RedBundy13]

mistake

I mistakingly wrote Commercial St. when I meant to write Wentworth. Sorry Either way on Wentworth St.. The first few places on either side of the road.

[DVV]

Hi Redbundy and Steven

Certainly Tabram is a Ripper victim, but was she his first ?
The 'frenzy' attributive systematically qualifies this murder, and while I agree it was a bit messy, it's more importantly a 'vicious' one to my eyes (remember that although he was trying to kill her as fast as possible, the murderer surprisingly targeted the vagina, and if done post-mortem, still it's definitely "vicious"), and prior to Tabram, Millwood and Smith had been 'viciously' attacked (the Millwood case is a murder imo, but that's for another thread) in a similar manner.

[Malcolm X]

JTR would definitely have been covered in blood, more like loads of little spots, just think of Steven Lawrence !

this is maybe why JTR improved his M.O.... that is if JTR killed her, because it doesn't look like him to me, it looks like a gang attack.

[Wickerman]

..... and prior to Tabram, Millwood and Smith had been 'viciously' attacked (the Millwood case is a murder imo, but that's for another thread) in a similar manner.

I lean towards Ada Wilson being his first... but for another thread.

"...man of about 30 years of age, 5ft 6ins in height, with a sunburnt face and a fair moustache. He was wearing a dark coat, light trousers and a wideawake hat."

JTR would definitely have been covered in blood, more like loads of little spots

Not necessarily, if Tabram was dead before he stabbed her there would be no blood pressure in her system, so minor spots on his wrists & hands, maybe.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

While it's possible that Tabram was killed by one man, it's far more probable there were two. This has been a sticking point for years for the modern Ripperologist, particularly for those who view Tabram as a probable Ripper victim. For some reason, they feel compelled to try and work it into a one-killer scenario. But there were two.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RedBundy13]

Kind of noisey

I've always thought that more people would make more noise and more noise means they would have been more likely to have been seen. Not that 2 or more people couldn't have been as silent as 1 person, it just seems more likely. One other question? It seemed to me that they were going up there for sex, why would she follow a gang of people? If they grabbed her and dragged her up there then i'm sure she would have fought like hell, wouldn't it be safer to bring her down a alley? So for whatever reason she felt comfortable with what she was doing.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

I lean towards Ada Wilson being his first... but for another thread.
Regards, Jon S.

I too "lean towards Ada being the first" but I was alluding to cases where the "lower part of the abdomen", as they said, was targeted.

[niko]

While it's possible that Tabram was killed by one man, it's far more probable there were two. This has been a sticking point for years for the modern Ripperologist, particularly for those who view Tabram as a probable Ripper victim. For some reason, they feel compelled to try and work it into a one-killer scenario. But there were two.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom, I understand that you think there were two men involved in Tabram's murder. I would like to ask you the reason for thinking this ? was it because it is said that two different knives were used. Does this also mean that you think that two men were involved in the other murder's.
I personally believe Tabram was a Ripper victim and that more than one man was involved in the Whitechapel murder's, thankyou in advanced, all the best,agur.

niko

[DVV]

For some reason, they feel compelled to try and work it into a one-killer scenario. But there were two.
Tom Wescott

Hi Tom, imo the suggestion that there were two killers doesn't stand scrutiny. The soldiers trail led nowhere and the medic opinion that two weapons were used is a gross mistake (among many others from various medics).
After Reid's failure and the closure of the inquest, most police officials and newspapers made Tabram and the present-day canonicals the work of the same lone killer.(I remember there was one paper that put Tabram out of the picture but can't remember which, anyway there must be some, but not too many.)

[RedBundy13]

Tabram, not his 1st

Hey D,
Im starting to think you may be right about Tabram not being JtR's first. There does seem to be a progression with all these murders in my minds eye. I think your on to something...

[DVV]

Hi RedB
imo the pre-canonical cases are most enlightning, unfortunately they're most neglected.
There is nothing similar to the Millwood and Smith cases, neither in 1887 nor in 1889.
By the by, the Millwood case is a murder, no doubt, and I have an excellent reason to disbelieve Dr Arthur post-mortem.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom, I understand that you think there were two men involved in Tabram's murder. I would like to ask you the reason for thinking this ? was it because it is said that two different knives were used. Does this also mean that you think that two men were involved in the other murder's.
I personally believe Tabram was a Ripper victim and that more than one man was involved in the Whitechapel murder's, thankyou in advanced, all the best,agur.

Hi Tom, imo the suggestion that there were two killers doesn't stand scrutiny. The soldiers trail led nowhere and the medic opinion that two weapons were used is a gross mistake (among many others from various medics).
After Reid's failure and the closure of the inquest, most police officials and newspapers made Tabram and the present-day canonicals the work of the same lone killer.(I remember there was one paper that put Tabram out of the picture but can't remember which, anyway there must be some, but not too many.)

Hi Niko and DVV. I don’t want to get too detailed about this, but first let me say that contrary to DVV’s assertion, I’m not aware of any supposition that proves Dr. Killeen had made a ‘gross mistake’ in concluding the use of two weapons. Again, this seems like a move to make more sense of the lone killer hypothesis. In reality, no less than four weapons were used against Tabram – whatever she was hit upon the head with, hands for strangling, penknife, and dagger. In the lone killer hypothesis, he hits his victim in her head, strangles her, stabs her 38 times, then once again with a different (and more efficient) blade, forcing the question as to why he didn’t use only the more efficient blade all along. This is a lot of activity for one man, and while the stabbing suggests ferocity, the confidence displayed in silently subduing his victim and his success in doing so, suggest someone with his wits about him. What we have here is one man strangling Tabram (which took about 2-3 minutes) while the other man rifled her pockets for money and stabbed her repeatedly with a penknife (taking about the same amount of time). Man #1 then pulled his “long, strong instrument” and stabbed her in the heart. This hypothesis makes far more sense. Man #1 (Dagger Man) may have become Jack the Ripper. These two men also killed Emma Smith, but that was a killing of opportunity, whereas Tabram was more or less planned. Researchers always start with Tabram and move forward, whereas I chose to isolate Smith and Tabram and study them separately and together. I don’t know that the men who killed them became Jack the Ripper, but Tabram and Smith were most likely killed by the same men. I’ll be discussing this in my book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[niko]

Thankyou Tom, for explaining your two man theory, all the best,agur.

niko

[DVV]

Hi Tom

Hi Niko and DVV. I don’t want to get too detailed about this, but first let me say that contrary to DVV’s assertion, I’m not aware of any supposition that proves Dr. Killeen had made a ‘gross mistake’ in concluding the use of two weapons.
Tom Wescott

that's not the only mistake he did. Cornwell, for once, is convincing on this. She knows forensic a bit, I believe. Of course, all sorts of knives can pierce all kinds of bones, let alone cartilage - and here we are talking of a knife that stabbed (in a frenzy, as they say) 38 stabbed without breaking.

Not a toy, then. Clearly Killeen was lost, completely so.

And contrary to what Killeen believed, an ordinary knife can even pierce a skull. Cornwell (sorry) says there are numerous examples. It's quite easy to check out.