Tabram and Kelly?

[Christine]

Anyone seen the movie "Henry", the (admittedly) fictionalized story of killer Henry Lee Lucas, in which he metciculously explains to his friend who wants to join him how if you keep deliberately changing your M.O. then you can get away with killing as many people as you want? Creepy.

With Jack though, I think he followed the same M.O. most of the time but not always. Mary's facial mutilations do not take her out of the picture because Catherine Eddowes also had her face slashed, and her bodily mutilations mirrored Annie Chapman's. With Martha, who I do believe was killed by Jack, I think she was his first fatal attack and that the wild stabbing spree Jack inflicted on her left him drenched in blood, making him realize he would have to change his tactics in the future if he wanted to keep that from happening again.

"Henry" is a fine movie, but it's a work of fiction. Henry Lee Lucas confessed to every unsolved murder the police dangled in front of him because they kept him alive while he was confessing. Some people believe he was actually guilty of exactly one killing--his mother. As far as I can tell, all the murders considering probable Lucas killings were stabbings.

The real question is, if the Ripper killed Tabram, why didn't he mutilate her? He went to great lengths to mutilate the other victims, why wouldn't he mutilate Tabram if he had the chance? Can you come up with some sort of workable brain pathology that has him not mutilating Tabram?

[Philbee]

You are missing the point Christine .. Martha was a trial run ..but that sounds premeditated which I dont think it was

[Ben]

Can you come up with some sort of workable brain pathology that has him not mutilating Tabram?

Yep, he hadn't fully developed that component of his signature yet, in the same way that the appreciable majority of serial killers don't start out with a fully developed signature. I'd argue that repeatedly puncturing a dead body with a knife certainly constitutes a form of mutilation.

[Philbee]

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

[Philbee]

? Is there a workable brain pathology guide book out ... or should I try e bay

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.