Ripper Victim?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Perhaps not an established fact in all recorded cases, Glenn, but for the overwhelming majority there is usually an exploratory period that culminates in a more polshed technique with later murders. There's no reason to assume that JTR belongs in the small minority of serial who embark upon a killing spree with a ready-prepared MO which he carries out to the latter, as would be necessary to accept if Nichols was the first attack and murder, which I very much doubt. In fact, I don't know of any criminalogical expert who has ever gone on record as saying that Nichols was the first ever attack.

What the criminologists say or do not say about this I have no idea, Ben, but you are quite wrong if you think serial killers embarking on a murder spree with a ready-prepared technique belong to a 'small minority'.
But I agree, Christie might not be the best example. But of course there are others besides those I've already mentioned. There is no need to take the traits of some serial killers and then apply them and use it as a mould on the whole bunch, and then assume or take for ganted that the Ripper MUST have killed before Nichols. He may have had hurt animals or been guilty of sexual offenses but not necessarily of violent crimes or other murders.

There is nothing that remotely militates against the possibility that Tabram's killer wanted to repeatedly puncture a corpse after death. In fact, a reasonable case can be advanced that he did precisely that.

It is certainly not the same thing, Ben, and that is what I tried to explain in my last post. Even if he continued to stab on the corpse it would still be a part of the same process as when he killed her, as an extension of what he was already doing and while he still was in a rage.
In the Ripper's case we see a killer who appears to have a clear agenda where the post mortem mutilations is the important part and the whole purpose and gratification, not the killing itself, and quite separate from the killing. It is, in my view, two killers with two different needs and agendas.

All the best

[johnnyerwin]

One appears to have been killed in a fenzy for the sake of killing and the other was murdered for the purpose of being deliberately subjected to post mortem mutilation.

I think you're taking liberties here with interpretation; who said anything about a "frenzy"? The Doctor performing the autopsy indicated that the breasts, abdomen and groin appeared to be the targets of the stabbings, and one of them was likely done by a different weapon than the others. Who can say whether or not the killer took his time probing the victim with his knife?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I think you're taking liberties here with interpretation; who said anything about a "frenzy"? The Doctor performing the autopsy indicated that the breasts, abdomen and groin appeared to be the targets of the stabbings, and one of them was likely done by a different weapon than the others. Who can say whether or not the killer took his time probing the victim with his knife?

I am basing it on the fact that most cases of multiple stabbings are made in a state of disorganized frenzy. According to experts and police personnell who have experienced these types of crimes, multiple stabbing is generally a sign of uncontrolled rage and it is a perfectly logical conclusion when you look at how they were made and see what they look like (how I wish we had a crime scene photo of this murder!). The upper part of the body is generally also the common area of attack in murders that involves multiple stabbing.

Tabram was stabbed all over her upper body - and the breasts, abdomen and (possibly) groin actually pretty much summarizes the whole upper body. I would think that is what Killeen meant, since the rest of the body was intact.
In Tabram's case there is no real evidence of that certain areas on the upper body itself where specifically chosen since she was pretty much stabbed all over. The killer actually managed to puncture every possible organ in several places on various parts of the upper body.
Regarding the larger wound (which wasn't really a 'rip') - perhaps made by a different weapon - it is difficult today for us to establish the meaning of it, or how it was made or by what type of weapon. But to interpret it as a foreplay to the Ripper's decision to open up the abdomen on his victims is indeed to take a lot of liberties since there is absolutely no evidence that supports such a deduction.

All the best

[johnnyerwin]

But to interpret it as a foreplay to the Ripper's decision to open up the abdomen on his victims is indeed to take a lot of liberties since there is absolutely no evidence that supports such a deduction.

Which I indicated, and in the same vein there is no evidence to support this "Frenzy" you speak of.

In one hand you seem to accept what the experts say about stabbings and in the other you dismiss what they say about the "evolution" of serial murderers in some cases. You can't have it both ways!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Well, no because I actually don't know that many murder case involving multiple stabbing that hasn't been a result of rage, frustration or sexual frenzy. This is simply what other cases show. And of course it kind of speaks for itself - if you're in a rage, you are more likely to stab the victim a large number of times in a frenzy.
In addition, there is no evidence of any design in Tabram's murder. As I said, she was stabbed all over the upper body/torso and this is generally what we see in murders that involve multiple stabbing. And this category of murder isn't actually that uncommon. There exists a large number of murders (even in my country) where the victim has been stabbed way more than 39 times. It's not like it's necessarily serial killer material.

All the best

[johnnyerwin]

I understand your conclusions, and agree they certainly could be true surrounding the circumstances of Tabram's death.

I have to say though that it takes some selective interpretation of all the facts available in order to arrive at your point of thinking here, making your theory no more valid than several others out there.

Until something more conclusive is revealed I personally consider her as a possible JtR victim.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I don't know what you mean with 'selective' here, John, but yes - it is interpretation of the facts. And of course personal opinons. I don't anyone here can make any claims of delivering the absolute truth.As for my own interpretation, I don't see any indications that supports Tabram being a Ripper victim. In fact, accepting her as such would really force me to stretch my imagination beyond what's possible from the evidence available.

All the best

[johnnyerwin]

I don't know what you mean with 'selective' here, John, but yes - it is interpretation of the facts. And of course personal opinons. I don't anyone here can make any claims of delivering the absolute truth.As for my own interpretation, I don't see any indications that supports Tabram being a Ripper victim. In fact, accepting her as such would really force me to stretch my imagination beyond what's possible from the evidence available.

Okay, well I wasn't going to beat this to death but I'll explain my use of the term "Selective" as I used it.

Selective Interpretation #1: That Tabram's injuries were different, thus she was murdered by someone else. Despite there being expert opinion on the fact that this is not uncommon in many cases of serial murder.

Selective Interpretation #2: That the killer was in some sort of frenzy when he stabbed Tabram. The Doctor performing the autopsy believed that at least 2 different weapons were used, which seems to indicate that some time was involved.

You yourself used the term selective in an earlier post here:

As for Dr Keppel, it is interesting how you always voice one particular expert who suits your own arguments and then disregard what others in the same field might say. I think that's what they call being selective.

I think I've demonstrated that you've been doing the same thing here! That is to ignore what experts say regarding the behaviour of serial murderers and yet buying completely what they say about stabbings in general.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye here, which is to be expected on a forum such as this. I respect your opinion and I'll read your response here, however unless there's some new issue to be made I don't think I'll be laboring my point of view further.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No, John, I tried to explain it to you earlier but obviously it didn't get through.
I am relying on the simple fact that almost all cases I know of where multiple stabbing is involved is a result of frenzy and/or anger. Although I mentioned experts in that context, this is an undisputable fact based on what we know from other such cases! I do not rely purely on what any experts say here.

Anyone can pick an expert who supports ones view - which is why I rarely refer to specific experts in the first place. Crime history has shown that several serial killers seem to stick to a preferred method from the very beginning. This has nothing to do what the experts say but simply what the cases shows us.
Like many domestic murderers without any prior criminal record, serial killers are perfectly capable of starting out with a full blown method without any 'trial and error' attempts, although of course one has to expect the latter murders to be more refined as the killer becomes more daring and sophisticated. But not necessarily different as far as the main characteristics are concerned.

I also think you are jumping to conclusions about what Killeen said since Killeen doesn't actually provide us with that much information. He appears to have been sure about that two weapons were used but he couldn't exactly define it in more specific terms. 'Two weapons' could also mean that the offenders might have been two and not necessarily one offender with two weapons. And those are the facts. Tabram was stabbed to death three weeks before Nichols had her throat cut and was mutilated post mortem. I do not believe the Ripper during a period of three weeks would 'invent' his preferred method of cutting the throat extremely deep and also 'invent' an urge to dissect her post mortem.

But most importantly, the evidence of PC Barrett coming across a soldier outside the crime scene and at the right time, fitting nicely with Killeen's estimate if time of death is probably the best indicator, knowing that those were the category of clients Tabram and Pearly Poll served that night.

We will never know for sure and there is a slim chance that Tabram might have been an early Ripper attempt. My view, however, is that if there is a connection between the two murders, it's that the Ripper might have been triggered to put his fantasies into action by reading about the Tabram murder and the hallabaloo it created. But again - just my personal view.

All the best

[richardnunweek]

Hi Glenn,
Tonque in cheek reply.
If the Thirty nine theory has any credence whatsoever then Tabram has to be the start of the series.
If not it would destroy Joe's famous interpretation of the pillars and the 40 strokes less one inflicted on Christ, also would mess my dates connection to the number 39, also the two letters refering to number 39 sent to the police , also the cuttings that a alleged relative of J Barnett showed author Paul Harrison which included the press accounts of the Tabram Murder.
Tabram has to be the novice 'Jack' in action. Does it not Glenn?
Regards Richard.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,
Tonque in cheek reply.
If the Thirty nine theory has any credence whatsoever then Tabram has to be the start of the series.
If not it would destroy Joe's famous interpretation of the pillars and the 40 strokes less one inflicted on Christ, also would mess my dates connection to the number 39, also the two letters refering to number 39 sent to the police , also the cuttings that a alleged relative of J Barnett showed author Paul Harrison which included the press accounts of the Tabram Murder.
Tabram has to be the novice 'Jack' in action. Does it not Glenn?
Regards Richard.

I certainly do hope that was tongue in cheek, Richard.

All the best

[johnnyerwin]

No, John, I tried to explain it to you earlier but obviously it didn't get through. I am relying on the simple fact that almost all cases I know of where multiple stabbing is involved is a result of frenzy and/or anger.

I heard you before, I just don't entirely agree with it. Most of the cases I've read regarding multiple stabbings DID seem to indicate frenzy as well; however there was often many other indicators to reach that conclusion. Of all the unsolved cases out there that would involve multiple stabbings, in the absence of other data you can only guess at what the mind state of the killer was. If the injuries themselves were all rather ragged perhaps we could see that pattern here too, but as you've stated we don't have much to work with and there's some minor indication that the wounds were somewhat deliberate.

Crime history has shown that several serial killers seem to stick to a preferred method from the very beginning.

Several perhaps, but not all. Sutcliffe comes to mind.

My view, however, is that if there is a connection between the two murders, it's that the Ripper might have been triggered to put his fantasies into action by reading about the Tabram murder and the hallabaloo it created. But again - just my personal view.

I've encountered that opinion before and agree it does seem quite plausible, perhaps with the Emma Smith case thrown in for good measure.

Cheers

[Dan Norder]

there is no similarity whatsoever between Tabram and Nichols in either the nature of the attacks, the characteristics of the murders or the criminal's intentions.

Well, again, experts on making those determinations say you are wrong. Your saying otherwise is completely meaningless as far as I am concerned. You are not an expert. In fact, you are about as far away from being an expert on this topic as possible. Despite this you phrase things all the time as if you think you are an expert. So when I point out what actual experts say you should pay attention.

As for Dr Keppel, it is interesting how you always voice one particular expert who suits your own arguments and then disregard what others in the same field might say. I think that's what they call being selective.

I am not disregarding what other people in that same field say, because, at least as far as I know, NONE of them have ever argued what you argue: that Tabram was not a victim of the Ripper. Keppel says she definitely WAS a victim. Others, as I have already pointed out, list the main five, say they are definite but also say that others might also have been the Ripper's work. They do not rule Tabram out. Yet you insist on trying to do so for some bizarre reason.

I am not being selective at all here. All it takes to prove that you can't try to state with any certainty that you are right is one expert who says you are wrong. If I wanted to prove that Tabram WAS a Ripper victim then I would need a lot more evidence, but that's not what I am trying to do. I am saying that your efforts to say she WASN'T don't make sense in light of what we know about other serial killers and what the experts have to say.

And of course, even though Dr Keppel definitely is an expert on the subject he is not the only one and no expert's OPINIONS and INTERPRETATIONS should be regarded as law.

My pointing out that Keppel says you are wrong is not saying that his word is law. To the contrary, when you say with your strong language that there's no reason to think that Tabram and Nichols were by the same hand, that all evidence points elsewhere, and all that nonsense, you are actually the one trying to provide your own voice as law... and you do so even though it contradicts the experts. That's what I dispute.

As for the throat cut, I would hardly call it just 'means to an end'

Again, what you call it isn't really meaningful at all.

the throat cut must undoubtedly be regarded as an important part of the Ripper's trademark since it is much more excessive and of extremely deep nature than what's either common or necessary for the crime

Extreme throat cuts were actually pretty common.

and, like the abdominal mutilations, is apparent on all victims from Nichols onwards.

But that does absolutely nothing to prove that someone who didn't have that feature was not killed by the same hand.

That's like arguing that facial mutilations must be regarded as an important part of the Ripper trademark because they are unnecessary and were apparent on Eddowes and Kelly and therefore none of the rest of the victims were by the Ripper. It's completely arbitrary in selecting what you choose to insist was an essential element, and it's another one of those circular arguments you like so much. You think Nichols was the first victim, so anything you find that first happened with Nichols is supposed to prove she was the first victim.

Glenn, seriously, if you weren't so aggressive in trying to argue something that contradicts the experts, nobody would have a problem with you stating your opinion. The problem comes in when you insist that you are right and that there's no logical way to see it otherwise when you have no background, experience or knowledge to back it up with and the people who actually do either don't go as far as you do or say the exact opposite. If you found an actual expert who did say what you try to claim, then at least you could say you choose to believe that expert instead of the other experts, but you don't even have that. You just always insist that you have a professional understand of the topic while at the same time contradicting what all the professionals say. That's not just selective, that's either delusional or downright deceptive.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I heard you before, I just don't entirely agree with it. Most of the cases I've read regarding multiple stabbings DID seem to indicate frenzy as well; however there was often many other indicators to reach that conclusion. Of all the unsolved cases out there that would involve multiple stabbings, in the absence of other data you can only guess at what the mind state of the killer was. If the injuries themselves were all rather ragged perhaps we could see that pattern here too, but as you've stated we don't have much to work with and there's some minor indication that the wounds were somewhat deliberate.

Sorry John, but common sense dictates that multiple stabbing and rage/frenzy do go hand in hand. Of the cases I come across this has also shown to be the truth when evidence have been produced of what really happened. In some more modern cases we of course have access to crime scene photos, and looking at those is generally enough to establish this.

Several perhaps, but not all. Sutcliffe comes to mind.

Of course and there are loads of others as well. I have never said that all serial killers stick to their methods, only that it isn't such a small minority as some people tend to imply.

I've encountered that opinion before and agree it does seem quite plausible, perhaps with the Emma Smith case thrown in for good measure.

Thanks for considering it, John. Indeed.
I can't say that is what happened, but I do think it is possible.
Cheers.

[sdreid]

I don't much believe any of the "experts" in this field. Most of them don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground.