Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[Batman]

I'm on the fence when it comes to Tabram but I lean towards NOT a Ripper victim. Firstly, we need to put the victim profile to one side because, as Sam rightly pointed out, violence and murder are occupational hazards for low-class prostitutes. There are too many discrepancies within the signature and mo for me to link Tabram with the 'canonical' victims. Tabram's killer (or killers) directed most of their stabbings to the upper body. There are little to no cuts or to the lower abdomen or vaginal area. There is nothing to be seen of the Ripper's fantasy of destroying the abdominal area to retrieve organs. It is difficult to accept that the killer went from frenzied stabbing to the upper body, to efficient throat-cutting and methodical slicing of the abdomen in a short space of time, notwithstanding the possibility that Polly's killer was disturbed and had more planned for her. It's not enough to argue that the killer's signature/mo wasn't fully formed, when he shifts from one to the other in a few weeks. That is not what is meant by an evolving signature.

Read this

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10998

[Harry D]

Read this
https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10998

Not that a workable hypothesis imo.

Most serial killers have a paraphilia within their signature that they are fulfilling. In the canonical series it was abdominal mutilation escalating to organ removal and dissection. In Tabram's case we see impulsive, frenzied stabbings which are not focused in the same direction. I wouldn't be surprised if there was little premeditation involved. It was not uncommon for men to carry knives for protection or part of their trade. Tabram upsets the wrong guy and boom. Not the same as a killer who's prepared to dispatch his victims before he gets to work. Now, this could still have been the same guy. I don't rule out the possibility that the thrill of Tabram's murder might have given him the confidence to indulge his fantasies on Polly et al. There's an argument to be made, but I'm not sure I buy it.

[John G]

Not that a workable hypothesis imo.

Most serial killers have a paraphilia within their signature that they are fulfilling. In the canonical series it was abdominal mutilation escalating to organ removal and dissection. In Tabram's case we see impulsive, frenzied stabbings which are not focused in the same direction. I wouldn't be surprised if there was little premeditation involved. It was not uncommon for men to carry knives for protection or part of their trade. Tabram upsets the wrong guy and boom. Not the same as a killer who's prepared to dispatch his victims before he gets to work. Now, this could still have been the same guy. I don't rule out the possibility that the thrill of Tabram's murder might have given him the confidence to indulge his fantasies on Polly et al. There's an argument to be made, but I'm not sure I buy it.

Paraphilia? Well, according to Keppel, JtR's "paraphilia" was picquerism, a psychological condition that doesn't actually exist!

[Batman]

Not that a workable hypothesis imo.
In Tabram's case we see impulsive, frenzied stabbings which are not focused in the same direction. I wouldn't be surprised if there was little premeditation involved. It was not uncommon for men to carry knives for protection or part of their trade. Tabram upsets the wrong guy and boom.

Tabram was not the result of an impulsive frenzied stabbing and there was nothing about her to suggest she was engaged in sex. She didn't rip apart her own clothes to get stabbed mostly naked and there was no sign of intercourse.

Her murderer did not stab through her clothing. He rendered her unconscious first.

He had ripped off her blouse and tore off other pieces of clothing. She didn't do that to herself. When she was naked, she was then stabbed repeatedly at her upper sexual organs and chest area and then she was stabbed in her private parts.

This is called a Lust Murder.

This is not an on the spot feud between prostitute and client.

[Darryl Kenyon]

For a soldier or both to have killed Martha you have to believe that Poll was telling the truth with no corroborating evidence to say she was. Pubs they drank in, yet nobody saw a foursome in that period of time. Also that she genuinely failed to recognize someone [soldier or two], who she spent a large potion of the evening with. Not only that but his mate hung around George yard while his pal was offing Martha and chatted to a policeman [even more stupid if this soldier was the killer], and that he would cover up for his mate who had just frenziedly killed someone, which of course could lead him into serious trouble [don't forget these soldiers, if they did exist were prime suspects]. More likely his mate just turned up with no bloodstains on him etc and they went off home together with the soldier who was hanging around not thinking anything else of it.

[Batman]

For a soldier or both to have killed Martha you have to believe that Poll was telling the truth with no corroborating evidence to say she was. Pubs they drank in, yet nobody saw a foursome in that period of time. Also that she genuinely failed to recognize someone [soldier or two], who she spent a large potion of the evening with. Not only that but his mate hung around George yard while his pal was offing Martha and chatted to a policeman [even more stupid if this soldier was the killer], and that he would cover up for his mate who had just frenziedly killed someone, which of course could lead him into serious trouble [don't forget these soldiers, if they did exist were prime suspects]. More likely his mate just turned up with no bloodstains on him etc and they went off home together with the soldier who was hanging around not thinking anything else of it.

Poll's story is obviously a farce. However, PC Barrett identified the person he saw and that person claims to have been in Brixton or something with Private Law. Meaning PC Barrett was wrong and we don't know who this man is... or the man is lying.

[Sam Flynn]

Tabram was not the result of an impulsive frenzied stabbing and there was nothing about her to suggest she was engaged in sex.

The fact that she was a prostitute, found lying on her back with her skirts up, might give some indications to the contrary.

She didn't rip apart her own clothes

Nobody's suggesting she did.

there was no sign of intercourse.

Meaning, no sign of ejaculate; that doesn't mean that intercourse was never intended, nor that it hadn't commenced.

When she was naked

She was not naked.

she was then stabbed repeatedly at her upper sexual organs

No, she was cut once somewhere in the region of her private parts, and all the other wounds - multiple stabs - were confined to the upper half of her body. Please stick to the facts.

This is called a Lust Murder.

It could equally be the work of a man losing his temper and going off like a firework.

This is not an on the spot feud between prostitute and client.

Not a feud, but an over-the-top frenzy, which it undoubtedly was whoever did it.

[MrBarnett]

Gareth,

I suspect that by 'upper sexual organs' Batman may mean her breasts.🤔
Gary

[Sam Flynn]

I suspect that by 'upper sexual organs' Batman may mean her breasts.��

I've obviously been doing it wrongly!

[Batman]

"Sex organs" in cultural, not biological context. As in sexualized mammary glands. Her "boobs" were stabbed. Kelly's were removed.

This is not frenzied. He rendered her unconscious. Then he proceeded to rip away her clothes. She was exposed. Her skirt around her waist. His stabbing is clearly done in a pre-meditated sexual context aimed at her breasts and chest and her private area.

This is a Lust murder. Punters getting upset to explain a lust murder doesn't work here one bit.

Like JtR he didn't have sex with her.

[MrBarnett]

I'm no expert on Victorian ladies' fashion, but from the photos I've seen, they tended to wear their skirts well above their waists?

So Tabram's killer - the lust murderer - raised her skirts giving him access to both her stomach and her genitalia and proceeded to stab her stomach 6 times and cut her 'lower part' only once?

You have to be pretty desperate to see a primarily sexual motivation in that. Not just to see one but to deny the possibility of the attack not being sexually motivated.

[MrBarnett]

"Sex organs" in cultural, not biological context. As in sexualized mammary glands. Her "boobs" were stabbed. Kelly's were removed.

This is not frenzied. He rendered her unconscious. Then he proceeded to rip away her clothes. She was exposed. Her skirt around her waist. His stabbing is clearly done in a pre-meditated sexual context aimed at her breasts and chest and her private area.

This is a Lust murder. Punters getting upset to explain a lust murder doesn't work here one bit.

Like JtR he didn't have sex with her.

Why do you omit her stomach when you list the areas attacked? Is it because by no indiarubber man stretch can you think of a way of calling that a sexual organ?

Tabram's killer rained knife wounds across her whole torso, but was clearly least interested in its 'lower part'.

[Sam Flynn]

"Sex organs" in cultural, not biological context. As in sexualized mammary glands.

The mouth and lips have been culturally sexualised, but nobody calls them "upper sex organs", do they? It would help if you stuck to the facts and stopped using such over-generalised, and imprecise, wording.

Her "boobs" were stabbed.

As were her stomach, lungs and liver. Perhaps we've got an offal fetishist on our hands?

Oh, and lest we forget. Apart from her boobs, her throat, that other famous "upper sex organ" (RIP Linda Lovelace), was also stabbed multiple times.

This is not frenzied.

Nearly forty stab-wounds repeatedly punched into her thorax and upper abdomen looks pretty frenzied to me.

He rendered her unconscious.

She was killed on a stone staircase and quite probably banged her head; that kind of thing happens on stone steps. Even if her killer banged her head against the stairs, or whacked her with a cosh, then how would that be incompatible with a frenzied attack?

His stabbing is clearly done in a pre-meditated

No. A spur-of-the-moment temper tantrum is entirely congruent with what happened; more so, if anything, than a pre-meditated lust murder.

Punters getting upset to explain a lust murder doesn't work here one bit.

Punters "getting upset", as you so mildly put it, can do precisely what happened to Martha Tabram. And we only need to "explain a lust murder" if we tautologically presume that it was a lust murder in the first place.

Like JtR he didn't have sex with her.

To borrow a word from one of the Ripper letters, all we know is that he didn't "sponk" in her. That doesn't mean that sex wasn't on the agenda, nor that it didn't commence.

[Batman]

I'm no expert on Victorian ladies' fashion, but from the photos I've seen, they tended to wear their skirts well above their waists?

So Tabram's killer - the lust murderer - raised her skirts giving him access to both her stomach and her genitalia and proceeded to stab her stomach 6 times and cut her 'lower part' only once?

You have to be pretty desperate to see a primarily sexual motivation in that. Not just to see one but to deny the possibility of the attack not being sexually motivated.

Where did you get this from?

Tabram had clothes covering her sexual parts either ripped off or displaced.

I don't mind people trying to quantum tunnel the minutia if it gets somewhere, but it doesn't take away from the fact he exposed her private areas so he could stab at them as a Lust murderer does.

No difference between a Lust murder and Tabram's murder.

[MrBarnett]

An excellent post, Gareth.

That and Christer's 'no' are all the confirmation I require that Tabram's murder might not have had a primarily sexual motive. Blind rage at some real or perceived slight could well have been the cause.