Tabram and Kelly?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Well, you have the chance to actually comment on it, since I assume this was oen such input you requested in your initial post. You asked why some people may exclude Kelly and Tabram.
Well, I gave you an example of the arguments surrounding a possible exclusion of Kelly - and I did so EVEN though there already exists millions of threads discussing this issue.

So now it is actually YOU who are diverging the thread off topic since I am actually giving you a chance to discuss it.
However, since I have already been involved in those discussions numerous times the last five years I am not engaging myself to repeating such arguments. But it would be interesting to know what your opinion is regarding those arguments - that is, if you are really interested.

I am not asking you to agree with it (some peopel do and some don't), I am only assuming that you would have some comment on it since it refers to what you actually asked about initially. But I might have been mistaken.

All the best


P.S. I have no idea what I should apologise about. On the contrary, creating threads devoted to issues that already existing in numerous other threads just because you don't have the urge to read those first and engage in those, is in fact questionable Board behaviour. Have you actually bothered to see how many Tabram and Kelly threads that exists?

[RonnieKray]

I think you've just about killed this debate as ruthlessly as Mary Kelly was killed don't you?

I didn't see your apology Glenn!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And you are STILL not commenting on the Kelly stuff, which actually refers to the question you provided in your intial post and which I suppose was the purpose of this thread.
Are you interested in debating the subject or not? Apparently not.

Your call.

All the best

[RonnieKray]

It is every users right to do as he sees fit within the rules and guidelines of this site. I do not beleive any person here as broken any rule or regulation and most of us here, apart from yourself, seem quite happy to continue the discussion, yet we are bombarded by you pummelling us to move onto other threads and do as you say.

That's bullying and you should appologize or leave us alone. PLEASE!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Because no one follows it.
It is not a question of bullying, but a growing irritation deriving from newcomers on the Boards who are starting threads on subjects already discussed several times on different threads, simply because they don't have the energy or simply don't care about reading them before they start a new thread.
What is the point of starting new threads on subjects that have already been discussed a million times on a zillion other threads, some of them being active as we speak!
But hey - that's just me.

It shall also be noted that you didn't comment on the Kelly arguments I actually DID provide in my previous post - according to your intent with thread - which makes one wonder if you're really interested in discussing the subject at all.

All the best

[RonnieKray]

As for Tabram, I once again will put people in the direction of the threads "Ripper Victim?" and "martha Tabram--First In the Series", where ther issue of the change from tabram to Nichols and the others are being debated at this very moment. We certainly don't need yet another thread on the same subject. All relevant arguments have been heard before anyway.

All the best

Glenn are you aware that it is the third or fourth time you have offered this same peice of advice in this very short thread? You appear to be bullying people for no reason that I can ascertain. Your advice was acknowleged some time earlier in the post and you were thanked for it at the time. Why do you continue?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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.

Kelly's facial mutilations can easily have other explanations and it's possible that the link to Eddowes' facial cuts is misleading. In fact, the killer of Kelly may have read about the facial cuts on Eddowes in the newspaper reports (where they were described in an erronous and very exaggerated fashion). But most importantly, the total destruction and facial dehumanization we see on Kelly is also displayed in several domestic homicides involving overkill and mutilation and where the killer has a close personal connection to the victim. Hence the term 'interpersonal'.

In addition, it is extremely difficult to state that the body mutilations on Kelly bear much resemblance to those on the other Ripper victims, since Kelly was pretty much butchered all over, with no real focus on any part of the body. It was a slaughter scene, and in my view a very amateurish one.

Not to mention the fact that the killer used a total different approach in attacking the victim - just because he was indoors and had more time doesn't mean that he could afford to not silence and subduing the victim or take her by surprise as efficiently as in the other Ripper killings.

And then - again - we must look at Kelly's victimology and the men surrounding her at the time of murder since it appears that kelly was involved with two men at the same time, one of them reportedly displaying abusive personality traits. One can't refer to 'change of modus operandi' everytime, but also have to look at other factors surrounding the victim herself, which is equally important in a murder investigation.

But of course all this has been said numerous times on different Kelly threads.

As for Tabram, I once again will put people in the direction of the threads "Ripper Victim?" and "martha Tabram--First In the Series", where ther issue of the change from tabram to Nichols and the others are being debated at this very moment. We certainly don't need yet another thread on the same subject. All relevant arguments have been heard before anyway.

All the best

[RonnieKray]

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.

A very plausible explanation....one certainly woth contemplating!

[RonnieKray]

Hi, 'Nothing To See,

You say they are unconnected but why or how can you be cetain of that? They may indeed be connected by one simple fact....by a killer.

A serial murderer doesn't just have a rigid MO, he learns what to do more effectivley or efficiently as he goes along...and there are always differences in each and every killing.....even in the most 'rigid' of killings.

I'd just like to know your opinions so I can think about them and dismiss or accept them, thanks!

[kensei]

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.

[Nothing to see]

Hi Ronnie,

Some do and some don't. I think it would also depend on what it is that makes the murderer tick and the circumstances in which he kills.

If it's the kill itself that's important to him and there isn't much chance that he will be interrupted, then he might not care what he uses, as long as he kills her in the end. If, however, it's not the murder itself that's really important and he kills outdoors with possibly people within earshot of the crime scene, he wants to do that as quickly and noiselessly as possible. Then strangling/throttling and cutting the throat to be sure seem like a very good way to do that.

We see this pattern in at least the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes and I think the Ripper stuck to it because he found that it worked for him. From the Ripper's prospective, another advantage of cutting the throat was that his victims could bleed out before he started his abdominal 'work', making sure he didn't get all bloody doing that.

All in all, a very effective way to get to what he actually wanted: mutilating his victims and getting away to his home before he could be caught.

All the best,
Frank

Tabram's murder and Kelly's murder had nothing to do with each other.

[FrankO]

Where does the notion come from that murderers follow a rigid pattern?

Hi Ronnie,

Some do and some don't. I think it would also depend on what it is that makes the murderer tick and the circumstances in which he kills.

If it's the kill itself that's important to him and there isn't much chance that he will be interrupted, then he might not care what he uses, as long as he kills her in the end. If, however, it's not the murder itself that's really important and he kills outdoors with possibly people within earshot of the crime scene, he wants to do that as quickly and noiselessly as possible. Then strangling/throttling and cutting the throat to be sure seem like a very good way to do that.

We see this pattern in at least the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes and I think the Ripper stuck to it because he found that it worked for him. From the Ripper's prospective, another advantage of cutting the throat was that his victims could bleed out before he started his abdominal 'work', making sure he didn't get all bloody doing that.

All in all, a very effective way to get to what he actually wanted: mutilating his victims and getting away to his home before he could be caught.

All the best,
Frank

[RonnieKray]

Unfortunatley Glenn this has now turned into a debate about debating - thanks for that!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I did, but based on experience I'd say it will all end up in debates about both victims that are very similar to what's been debated on other threads related to both of them separately, and with the same circular arguments.
The fact that this thread bakes two victims into the same one doesn't change that.

The question you asked about Tabram above, for example, is one of those that are debated right now on that thread I referred to in my post.

All the best

[RonnieKray]

Glenn, thank you for the advice. However, we are discusiing two murders here and a general point, not focussing on an actual murder but more of a general point on profiling. Maybe you didn't realise that.