Tabram and Kelly?

Completely disagree.

She probably was.

Very many theorists are very dubious about Stride's inclusion, and there's no evidence that she was "strangle/choked" by the way. Many would place Tabram above Stride in terms of consistency with the others, but realistically, the case for the overconfident exclusion or either isn't anywhere near a strong as is often made out.

Where are you getting "2 men" from?

Ben, my amigo,

The part I highlighted above and some of what follows is extremely subjective,...in fact there is some evidence that would support that Liz was very probably grabbed by her scarf, and the killer twisted it and used that to hold her while slitting her throat...perhaps "while falling". It may have acted as a neck sling at that point.

And neither Tabram nor Stride have all the essential elements of prior and future murders that are loosely attributed to one killer they nicknamed "Jack"...and in fact Stride may only have one present.

*Picked up while soliciting-likely Martha
*Attacked and Subdued without knife use-neither
*Throats slit while on the ground semi or fully unconscious-unproven but possible with Liz
*Abdomens opened-neither
*Organs from within the abdomen excised and taken-neither

I submit Ben that those five steps are, suggested by evidence, followed virtually systematically in only 3 Canonical murders...the first, the second, and the fourth...and that they are the basis from which a "Ripper" premise began. It is not present in the deaths of Emma in the spring, Martha in the Fall, Liz of Double Event fame and in the death of Mary Kelly.

They believed they sought someone who could be somewhat be accurately categorized as a Ripper, rather than a mere killer, stabber or slicer.

Best regards Ben

[Grabbit]

Funny you should mention cats. I was just thinking how pinning down Jack and his true count of victims was a bit like herding cats.

Ally

[Fisherman]

Grabbit writes:

"I heard it was 30 men and a dog!"

Longs as you steer clear of accusing cats, Grabbit, you will also steer clear of Suzy here on the boards. Once you forget it - I pity you ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Grabbit]

2 men?

I heard it was 30 men and a dog!

[Ben]

Tabram was not one of Jack's.

Completely disagree.

She probably was.

Very many theorists are very dubious about Stride's inclusion, and there's no evidence that she was "stangle/choked" by the way. Many would place Tabram above Stride in terms of consistency with the others, but realistically, the case for the overconfident exclusion or either isn't anywhere hear a strong as is often made out.

Where are you getting "2 men" from?

[Nothing to see]

I'm just waiting until a couple of people decide that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes don't fit the JtR pattern either. Then we can officially close down this website.

Now let's not be hasty! The 5 belong to Jack. They are his gets. The basic method of killing (strangle/choke cut throat) remains the same. Except for Kelly. I know. Too difficult to work out from what was left of her. But I figure Jack's tried and true. Jack wandering the streets of Whitechapel and someone else does a Jack? I don't think so.

Tabram was not one of Jack's. 2 men. 2 different weapons. Nothing I can see to relate her to Kelly at all.

And yeah, there seem to be a few Tabram threads around. Try not to repeat myself.

[Grabbit]

Indeed Grabbit - however, that being the case, this guy sure evolved quickly.

Certainly, but bear in mind how quick he despatched his victims (timeline-wise), once he got going and it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Longer odds than the more obvious ones admittedly, but there seems little point in excluding her completely when her case might hold evidence which matches up elsewhere.That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

For instance, Ada Wilson :- stabbing, neck area, motive probably robbery. No wonder there's strong argument against her being a 'Jack' victim.

Unless one considers Tom Wescott's theory of Jack convincing his victims to keep quiet as they were only being robbed. Emptying their pockets would certainly account for certain anomalies in the evidence. Suddenly Ada is back in the picture. Then from Ada to Martha, both involving stabbing. It's not such a great leap of the imagination anymore. Onto Polly, except that now Jack's gone from nasty little thief , probably with sick fantasies, to nasty little killer having got the thrill of power (sexual or otherwise), from killing Martha. He's arrived.

Or they may have nothing to do with it and Millwood was his practice run.

The point is, excluding victims without irrefutable evidence is surely limiting our possible view of what may or may not be.

Take care

Ally

[RonnieKray]

For example again I will use the example of Peter Sutcliffe.

He was known as The Yorkshire Ripper. Yet two of his victims were killed in Manchester.

He was known only to kill prositutes. Not so! He went on to kill any woman thet he could strike.

He swapped murder weopens.

On some murders he would target the vagina and mutilate - others he didn't.

On some murders he would strike up a conversation invite the woman into his car and drive to a place of their choosing. Other murders he struck them in the street having no contact or conversation whatsoever.

In one attack it is even thought that one victim was a taxi driver - a man!

In one of his early attacks he did not attack with a hammer but a rock inside a sock. In fact over ten different implements were known to be used including a chisel and a hack saw. At his trial there were the following weopens displayed:

SEVEN BALL-PEIN HAMMERS
ONE CLAW HAMMER
ONE HACKSAW
THREE CARVING KNIVES
ONE LONG THIN-POINTED KITCHEN KNIFE
ONE WOODEN-HANDLED COBBLER'S KNIFE
EIGHT SCREWDRIVERS
ONE LENGTH OF ROPE - that he used in just two out of at least 23 attacks!

He used several different vehicles.

He trawled red light areas and non red light areas.

He attacked victims in their own homes and also out doors.

One one victim he used a peice of wood to shove into her vagina and he also kicked her - with other victims he didn't do that.

There is no eveidence that strongly suggests that Tabram was significantly different from the cannon 5, just over analysis after many years passing.

[Ben]

Totally agree, Ronnie.

The changes aren't huge at all.

In fact, they're precisely what one would logically expect from a serial killer's early offences when his technique was in its untutored infancy, which is why no expert in serial crime has ever argued the case for ruling her out. The idea that two victims should be attributed to different killers on the basis that one slashed and the other stabbed is just nightmarishly wrong. As you correcly note with your Sutcliffe example, many other serial killers are capable of altering their methods to a far more drastic extent, despite the fact that many of their murders are otherwise consistent.

I fail to appreciate the significance of the timing factor. He doesn't need any great length time to come up with the concept of cutting as opposed to stabbing. If the idea of facial mutilations came to him within the space of a month, he could certainly do the same for abdominal slashing and mutilation. I don't mind people trying to exclude Tabram for other reasons, but arguing for her exclusion on the grounds that she's too "different" is provably worthless, as far as I'm concerned.

The differences between Tabram and Nichols are utterly negligible when we consider the "differences" that most other serial killers are capable of in terms of criminal diversity.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. There seem to be a lot of duplicate Tabram threads in session at the moment! I'd hate to have to copy and paste from one to another.

[RonnieKray]

Differences yes, but not principply huge!

The recent Ipswich murders (UK) had differences in each victim but we don't doubt they are unconnected in any way.

Where does the notion come from that serial killers do not change their methods?

Stabbing 39 times is in efect serious muilation. Who knows one way or the other but to deny this murder its significance with confident abdandon is not based on any fact or available evidence. It was certainly considered a JTR attack at the time. It's just an opinion but the are many more similarities than there are dissimilarities.

In any event serial killers can and do change their methods of killing.

[Sam Flynn]

There are no truly obvious differences with Tabram and the cannon 5.

Of course there are differences, Ron - huge differences.

Throat cutting, versus throat stabbing.

Focus on abdomen, versus focus on upper half of body.

Focus on ripping = making long incisions in someone's body with a controlled hand, as a means to an end (facilitating evisceration); versus...

Focus on stabbing = punching holes with great force in a frenzied manner, as an end in itself (with no prospect of facilitating evisceration)

Evisceration is a major differentiator, as - for that matter - is organ removal and mutilating the face with cuts.

[RonnieKray]

I don't see a truly big leap in technique. The Yorshire Ripper used a ball hammer at first and swapped for a claw hammer and between a philips screwdriver to a knife from one murder to another.

There are no truly obvious differences with Tabram and the cannon 5.

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed Grabbit - however, that being the case, this guy sure evolved quickly. Not only that, but he settled on a palpably different approach to killing within a very short space of time - an approach which was to remain consistent for at least three, if not four, subsequent murders.

[Grabbit]

Hi Sam,

but doesn't that mean we should be cautious about the evidence rather than ruling it out completely? As we've pointed earlier in the thread, serial killers that we already know can deviate dramatically from victim to victim for what is, to us at least, no apparent reason.

Ally

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Phil,

Totally agree Ben...I think this kill was impulsive but the pattern of signature resonates and amplifies

And changes, radically, from making deep puncture-wounds to sliding the knife down the body and making long cuts in the flesh, in a very short space of time.