Three cases of interruption?

[Ben]

I know many will say stabbing and cutting...whats the difference

Hey Mike,

I'd say the difference between the two is rendered almost insignificant when compared to the difference between, say, cutting with a knife and bashing with a gravel-filled sock, but the same man was responsible in the latter case.

More contemporary police officials included Tabram than excluded her - Abberline, Anderson and Reid spring to mind.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Fisherman,

I believe the reports regarding the investigation into Martha's death were submitted regularly along with suspected Canonical victims, and I also believe that stopped in October if I recall correctly. The separate victims list for "The Ripper" is formed around the same time as the name surfaces.

I see your stab/slice distinction FM,...keeps it a maybe anyway.

All the best.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"I know many will say stabbing and cutting...whats the difference"

You may have noticed, Mike, that I draw a line there - the stabber and the cutter were two different people in the Tabram case. There is nothing the cutter does in my scenario that points away from the possibility that he was the Ripper, is there?
And, incidentally, I think you are not correct when you say that the police did not regard Tabram as belonging to the series. The decision was a split one, but many policemen had her firmly on their lists.

The best,
Fisherman

You make some good points, including that we cannot ignore an abdominal wound when a series of them is about to occur...but even the police withdrew Martha from the suspected WM's Canonical victims, it seems more firmly so after the Double Event. I think they saw what I see, enough variations and enough fundamental attack differences to set her aside as a "Ripper" victim.

I know many will say stabbing and cutting...whats the difference, its still knives either way... but heres what I would say, stabbing a conscious woman dozens of times to achieve what could only be her murder, vs slicing a throat to kill an unconscious woman, slicing her abdomen open to get inside, and slicing...(with Annie supposedly with " one clean sweep of the knife").... the attachments of the organs to free and take them, are very different actions. The first is clearly overkill, which means rage or anger attached,... the second type infers some control of the sequence of events, and the order of his actions, set to achieve specific objectives...some of which do not involve causing death.

I dont think I can see the killer of Polly and Annie in that early August murder. Although I am one for "schedules" or patterns affecting his ability to kill only outside the 21 mid-month days and on only holidays or weekends, and the fact Martha is on a Holiday is within that pattern and schedule. But so was Emma, and for me, its very unlikely Jack was one of that gang.

Cheers FM, all the best.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"Unless you look at Marthas murder with some Ripper tinted glasses...no offense intended amigo,....there is nothing about her murder that suggests a man that chokes his victims unconscious, slits their throats, and opens their abdomens to take out things. Which would mean, as you suggest, this was him early in his "evolution".

Yep, Mike, I am working from the presumption that there is one thing and one thing only we KNOW that he wanted/needed to do. And that one thing was to open a woman up and procure organs from her. It´s basically all we seem to know about him and his driving forces.
Before he could reach that goal of evisceration, a number of obstacles would have to be overcome. Unless the women in his way committed suicide in hidden-away venues, offering him the opportunity to do his thing, he would have to find a way to subdue them and make sure that he stood the best chance possible of not being given away. He must have given those issues some thought, since there are alternative manners to achieve this; a hard punch, garrotting, choking, strangling, chloroform, a stab to the heart etcetera, etcetera.

This is secondary though, and like I said, the one thing I think we can reasonably argue is something we must look for when chasing the Ripper is signs of the urge to open up the abdominal cavity of a woman. If we get reports of somebody cutting women´s necks, I would say that this does in no way allow us to deduct that we are hot on the heels of the Ripper. I really don´t think that he cut necks to satisfy any urge, and cutting necks is, was and remains a pretty common way of dispatching people you have taken a dislike to.
No, to me it is the abdomen that rings the bell, nothing else.

And therefore, I would say that it would be extremely thoughtless to overlook Tabram as a possible Ripper victim - she did have a cut to the lower part of her body, and that means red alert, big time! Even if she had apparently sustained all her wounds by the same blade, meaning that we would have been obliged to accept that only one killer had been at work, I would still say that the cut to the abdomen would have had the edge (excuse the pun) over the stabs when assessing who might have attacked her.

As it stands, though, there is every reason to believe that the fact that she was attacked by two blades means that there is a very big possibility that she was assaulted by two different men. And since the only two wounds inflicted that could be described as not owing to the work of the smallish blade, were wounds that tally very well with what could be expected by a Ripper who had not yet come to a conclusion about which subduing and silencing method was the best - indeed it would have seemed to him that such a decision was uncalled for in this particular case, since Tabram would have seemed dead already - I think that the most reasonable conclusion by far is to add Tabram to the Rippers tally.
The time is right, the event is on a holiday, she has that all-important wound on the abdomen, and she provides a piece of puzzle that fits in very nicely with the progression that is carried on by Nichols a couple of weeks later. She even gives us the solution to how and why the Ripper formed his opinion that a cut throat would provide the optimal chances of staying on the loose after the next strike. The fact that she was a prostitute and a social outcast, however, would have had very little to do with the Rippers choice.

So, Mike, it´s all there, and it all fits perfectly with Flemings move to the Victoria home in the adjacent block at more or less exactly the time Tabram was killed.

That´s a tough act to follow, looking for Jack, I´d say!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Mike,
Martha Tabram was rather fat, I know, however her face seems much swollen. She may well have been choked or strangled etc, as already suggested by a contemporary newspaper.

Amitiés,
David

Im digesting the idea at the moment Fisherman, but in the interim thanks for mentioning that the skirts indeed were thrown up...just like the later organ donors were. And I think it does support a possible interruption...with whom I believe at this point was his first victim.

I dont think that we need to see any "crawl until he could walk" developmental kills, the man may have received some divine inspiration to start-up, or he could no longer suppress the feelings, or the killings were initiated for some other reason as yet unknown. Because if "Jack" killed Polly, and at least the 2 other Canonicals that had very similar circumstances and wounding, with organs extracted....I think the only thing he may have learned from Polly is that he needed more privacy to complete the extractions. But there no reason that he wasnt ready right from the get-go, to kill women and take abdominal organs from them.

Unless you look at Marthas murder with some Ripper tinted glasses...no offense intended amigo,....there is nothing about her murder that suggests a man that chokes his victims unconscious, slits their throats, and opens their abdomens to take out things. Which would mean, as you suggest, this was him early in his "evolution".

I see 3 women that were all killed extremely similarly, 2 of which had specific injuries in common with the known priors...lets leave Liz out of this for the moment,..that does seem to suggest a man with an attack/kill sequence, objectives, and geographical pattern preference.

If Polly was his first, I believe its possible that he wanted abdominal organs from the very outset.

Best regards FM

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"the wounds were different...not necessarily the hand that held the knife/knives."

That is correct, Mike. But ask yourself in how many cases where a victim is stabbed dozens and dozens of times by what can reasonably be argued to be a frenzied killer, we can establish that this frenzied killer has swopped blades? My score so far on that point is zero occasions, and I have looked around a bit.

Also, the 37 backdraws of the Tabram murder when it comes to the ability of ascribing it to Jack, are of course the stabs. Jack was no stabber, judging by what he did to Nichols et al. Bearing that in mind, I find it incredibly interesting that the of the other two wounds, BOTH may be ascribed to the larger blade, whereas NONE of the others may. Leaving us with the possible presence in George Yard Buildings that night of a man with a sturdy blade, who had an unpleasant, reasonably hitherto suppressed urge to cut into "the lower part of the body" of women - and who was now provided with a sudden opportunity to do just that.
What I am asking, Mike, is whether it is reasonable to argue that the Ripper may have carried his urge around with him for a significant time, without acting on it, since he fully well knew that you are no supposed to do such things? And is it reasonable to argue that such a man, when presented with a defenseless woman, freshly killed (so he would have thought) on a dark landing in the middle of the night, seen by nobody, may easily have fallen over the edge, so to speak?
I think John Bennets picture has opened up a very compelling scenario, Mike, I really, really do.

On Polly: The skirts HAD been thrown up - AND pulled down. Robert Paul said as much at the inquest.

The best!
Fisherman

Hi again,

Interesting conjecture on the Tabram murder Fisherman..that Jack steps in to finish her off. That would mean that 2 men capable of murderous acts with a knife on strangers were active that night...hmm. Not a huge stretch....its fairly clear to me that two such men were working on September 30th, why not 2 on August 6th? Although we only need one man really...the two distinct wounds means just that...the wounds were different...not necessarily the hand that held the knife/knives.

On Montys point about Pollys discovery and her condition....since in practical terms she is discovered 3 times that night, 1st witness, second one comes along...they leave and the PC finds her....who knows what condition she was actually left in by her killer. Her skirts may well have been thrown up....since her injuries match the type that are inflicted upon some other Canonicals, which did have their wounds and genitals left exposed, it wouldnt surprise me if for respects sake, the skirt was turned down and never mentioned.

I do think she was possibly a surgically interrupted organ donor. But I do not believe Liz's killer was interrupted.

All the best.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"Please, Fish, don't take that as a kind of "in cauda venenum"!... and I know you won't."

Good on you, David! I am of course most of all trying to dispell the notion that Stride was a Ripper victim in a slightly convoluted manner...

Keep well!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Thanks Jon,
we're also in agreement about 2nd choice (2), and logically for the 3rd (1).
I realize however that arguments for 2 are as weak as those for 3.
Fascinating problem like those raised by the GSG or others.

It almost seems - thanks to Fish's brain activity - like we 're about to confront 2 theories, ie "interruption" (somehow)against "scale".

Otherwise, I'm curious to understand why the Tabram and Stride cases should tell us something about one specific minor (under-epitheth)mystery of the Nichols' case, or what the 3 supposed interruptions (in George Yard, Buck's Row and Berner's Street) do tell us about JtR, generally speaking.

Please, Fish, don't take that as a kind of "in cauda venenum"!... and I know you won't.

Amitiés,
Lisbeth Salander's father (of course, this document isn't genuine)

[Jon Guy]

That is it.

Hi David

From your list of three :

1-the killer was interrupted by Lechmere and Cross
2-the killer was interrupted or disturbed by someone or something else
3-the killer wasn't interrupted at all, and what he did was somehow enough to him that night

As you say, 2 or 3.

If I had to choose,like yourself, number 3.

[DVV]

Hello

My personal belief, based upon my understanding of the witnesses evidence, is that Polly`s killer was not interupted. Or, if he was interupted, it was because of something else five or more minutes before Cross turned into Bucks Row.

That is it.

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

Hello

My personal belief, based upon my understanding of the witnesses evidence, is that Polly`s killer was not interupted. Or, if he was interupted, it was because of something else five or more minutes before Cross turned into Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

Monty writes:

"Youre assuming the organs were the intention, I assume this is based on the subsequent murders as no organs had been obtained in any of the previous, yes?"

Yes.

"He wasnt too fussy at Chapmans scene, or Eddowes.

He didnt leave Nichols abdomen exposed, an odd act which is out of step with those he did mutilate, Chapman, Nichols and Kelly."

It is somewhat odd, yes. Thing is, I don´t know how much we can read into it. We know that Cross and Paul fumbled about in the darkness to make her look more decent, and we know that it was in fact so dark that they did not even see that she had had her throat severed. What´s to say that their efforts did not include something that obscured the wounds? Perhaps they added closing her ulster to pulling her skirts down.

It also appears that the Ripper may have had practical difficulties with the stays Nichols was wearing, this perhaps resulting in a number of botched attempts to open her up. Taken together with what was written in the newspapers afterwards, that ”Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed”, it would seem that our man was struggling with the practical issues of her clothing getting in his way. We do not seem to have the confident type of cut through the garments that we can see in Eddowes case, for example. All of this leads me to a picture of a man who crouches over his victim in the darkness, working by feel and at great speed, and being deceived time and again by the uncooperative clothing of Nichols. I believe he was scared away before he could produce that useful large opening in her clothes he was striving for, and therefore I suggest that the frustration that this would have caused would be much more of an incentive to go looking for another victim than the botched Stride job.
It can of course be argued that he may have been refrained from further killing that night due to blood on his hands and such, but it can just as easily be argued that it would have taken minutes to wash it off and go hunting again.

To round it off, I am of course not certain myself that he was after an organ, Monty. But it remains the more credible scenario to my mind.

The best,
Fisherman