Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[Batman]

It also works outside an escalation model. Even more so.

You could make that case for a lot of serial killers who experiment with mo and signature at the start.

There's a huge jump from what was done to Smith to what was done to Tabram.

So are theirs.

'They' usually don't stop at this? Who are 'they'?

Criminals who commit sexual homicide.

[MrBarnett]

You could make that case for a lot of serial killers who experiment with mo and signature at the start.



So are theirs.



Criminals who commit sexual homicide.

What is your view of the 1901 Mary Ann Austin murder? Bang in the middle of the Dorset Street 'hot zone' and there's no question that the attack on her was of a sexual nature.

Do you think that was committed by the same person as killed Emma Smith? If not, do you think he committed similar attacks before or after that on Austin?

[MrBarnett]

Fine, it's alright if it came to her through twenty people eventually, the point is the story was out and was wrong before she came up with her story and seems to adopted the stories mistakes based on a wrong sighting.

That's compelling evidence she made it up.

Imagine a witness claims they saw two police officers with the murdered woman ten minutes before she was murdered. That this appears in the paper. Then it turns out that this witness was wrong. Mistaken identity. Then suddenly a witness turns up to claim she was with the woman and the two police officers.

What would you think? Especially if her story was almost totally uncorroborated? (Although PC Barett does seem to lend a little weight to her story, it may be the case they were lots of soldiers out that Bank Holiday evening).

Can you please explain how the Gillibanks' misidentification of Tabram is 'compelling' evidence that PP's story was a fabrication. Couldn't it equally be used to suggest that PC Barratt was deliberately lying about seeing a soldier?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It works in an escalation model. It chronologically fits. So does Tabram.

As pointed out before, to claim Nichols was JtRs first murder seems at odds with what we know about these types of serial killers.

Also, where are Smiths and Tabram's murderers and how come they aren't more of these sexual assaults by them? They usually don't stop at just this.

Wouldn’t that mean that if a man argued with a prostitute and kicked her in the vagina would that fit as part of an escalation model? Where do we begin? What reason do we have to say that Nichols wasn’t the ‘starting point?’

It seems likely that the assault on Smith wasn’t intended as a fatal one and as we know that there were gangs (and individuals) who saw prostitutes as fair game for robbing it’s not unreasonable to suggest that, if she hadn’t any money to pay, her attackers might simply have ‘punished’ her by preventing her from earning a living.

[MrBarnett]

Wouldn’t that mean that if a man argued with a prostitute and kicked her in the vagina would that fit as part of an escalation model? Where do we begin? What reason do we have to say that Nichols wasn’t the ‘starting point?’

It seems likely that the assault on Smith wasn’t intended as a fatal one and as we know that there were gangs (and individuals) who saw prostitutes as fair game for robbing it’s not unreasonable to suggest that, if she hadn’t any money to pay, her attackers might simply have ‘punished’ her by preventing her from earning a living.

And the reason we might not know of such attacks is that the women didn't die - and may not have even gone to hospital.

There's little doubt in my mind that whoever killed Tabram intended to do so and knew he had succeeded. Smith's attacker, on the other hand, probably didn't intend to kill her and wasn't initially aware that her injuries would be fatal.

Presumably, Batman has trawled the London Hospital admission registers to confirm that no such non-fatal injuries to women are recorded there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the reason we might not know of such attacks is that the women didn't die - and may not have even gone to hospital.

There's little doubt in my mind that whoever killed Tabram intended to do so and knew he had succeeded. Smith's attacker, on the other hand, probably didn't intend to kill her and wasn't initially aware that her injuries would be fatal.

Presumably, Batman has trawled the London Hospital admission registers to confirm that no such non-fatal injuries to women are recorded there.

It’s the intention that’s different Gary. And as you’ve pointed out how many similar non-fatal assaults might have occurred. What if a woman had been similarly assaulted but had taken a few days to die? What if she had lived alone and had been too ill to go to a hospital? What if she’d been too ashamed to admit to being the victim of such a horrible assault? There are many reasons why such an assault might have gone unrecorded (or even unnoticed if a prostitute was simply found dead in her room. Would the authorities have been particularly meticulous about accurately recording the cause of death? A death certificate might just have said ‘Peritonitis.’)

Her own explaination of what happened is plausible. I see little reason for doubting it and certainly not because she was a Whitechapel prostitute.

I’ve always been undecided on Tabram but, as you said, 39 stab wounds can be interpreted no other way than premeditated murder. And so Tabram is a possibility. Nothing about Smith’s death says ‘ripper’ though.

[MrBarnett]

And the reason we might not know of such attacks is that the women didn't die - and may not have even gone to hospital.

There's little doubt in my mind that whoever killed Tabram intended to do so and knew he had succeeded. Smith's attacker, on the other hand, probably didn't intend to kill her and wasn't initially aware that her injuries would be fatal.

Presumably, Batman has trawled the London Hospital admission registers to confirm that no such non-fatal injuries to women are recorded there.

I should make it clear that any injuries to a woman's vagina area (east or west) or to her 'upper sexual organs' (??) in the hot zone in 1888 must have been caused by JTR.

[MrBarnett]

It’s the intention that’s different Gary. And as you’ve pointed out how many similar non-fatal assaults might have occurred. What if a woman had been similarly assaulted but had taken a few days to die? What if she had lived alone and had been too ill to go to a hospital? What if she’d been too ashamed to admit to being the victim of such a horrible assault? There are many reasons why such an assault might have gone unrecorded (or even unnoticed if a prostitute was simply found dead in her room. Would the authorities have been particularly meticulous about accurately recording the cause of death? A death certificate might just have said ‘Peritonitis.’)

Her own explaination of what happened is plausible. I see little reason for doubting it and certainly not because she was a Whitechapel prostitute.

I’ve always been undecided on Tabram but, as you said, 39 stab wounds can be interpreted no other way than premeditated murder. And so Tabram is a possibility. Nothing about Smith’s death says ‘ripper’ though.

The big difference I think is that the sole aim of Tabram's killer was to kill her. For JTR that was just a means to an end.

[Batman]

What is your view of the 1901 Mary Ann Austin murder? Bang in the middle of the Dorset Street 'hot zone' and there's no question that the attack on her was of a sexual nature.

Do you think that was committed by the same person as killed Emma Smith? If not, do you think he committed similar attacks before or after that on Austin?

This is the one attack that seems to indicate a copycat, IMO.

Something like what this guy was doing...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/oct/06/ukcrime

However there wasn't a series after and no one was caught for it, so maybe not.

[MrBarnett]

This is the one attack that seems to indicate a copycat, IMO.

Something like what this guy was doing...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/oct/06/ukcrime

However there wasn't a series after and no one was caught for it, so maybe not.

Thanks, Batman.

I have my own ideas about that particular case. Although the nature of Austin's injuries might suggest otherwise, in the scenario I have in mind it wasn't even a lust attack, at least not primarily. I believe it may have been one in a 'series' of violent attacks on men and women that occurred from the 1890s onwards for at least a couple of decades, the attack on William Crossingham's wife-to-be in 1892 being one of them.

[Batman]

Thanks, Batman.

I have my own ideas about that particular case. Although the nature of Austin's injuries might suggest otherwise, in the scenario I have in mind it wasn't even a lust attack, at least not primarily. I believe it may have been one in a 'series' of violent attacks on men and women that occurred from the 1890s onwards for at least a couple of decades, the attack on William Crossingham's wife-to-be in 1892 being one of them.

Could be. At some stage after the Whitechapel murders, I think we start to see copycat individuals just popping up at intervals thinking they are JtR and that this goes on throughout the century and probably won't stop. When that all starts is the question. I think this 1901 case might not be a bad guess as to when it did.

[Observer]

You're making me feel that Pierre may have been right.

I think you might be onto something there Simon

[Abby Normal]

I think you might be onto something there Simon

pierre was right about what? all he did was give vague hints that he thought it was a police officer, or someone connected to the police- without ever naming a suspect, and as far as I know never involved a conspiracy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The big difference I think is that the sole aim of Tabram's killer was to kill her. For JTR that was just a means to an end.

[Batman]

What was JtR's means to an end with Nichols?