Tabram and Kelly?

[RonnieKray]

I have read on various posts the Murders of Tabram and kelly may not be the Rippers victims because the MO is different i.e. Tabram was stabbed rather than sliced and that two murder wepoens were involved.

I don't know if any of you have read anything about Peter Sutcliffe or visted the website where you can read word for word his confession?

He not only used different types of hammer, he used different knives, screwdrivers and killed both indoors and outside and went back to try to manipulate how one of his murders would be perceived when the body was found. He also killed non-prostitutes.

In the more recent spate of murders in Ipswich, Steve Wright killed and placed two bodies in water before getting even weirder by arranging the bodies in a cross style.

I have yet to see any rational reason to declare with any degree of certainty that these two murders Tabram and Kelly can be ruled out. Murderers do not stick rigidly to a pattern as somehow we have gotton the idea that they do!

Does anybody here have any evidence or opinions as to why both or either of these murders should not be linked to JTR victim list?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi RonnieKray,

As you may have noticed, those debates have been raging on numerous diffrent threads devoted for each victim for quite some time and it would be difficult to continue that on yet another without uncecessary repetition.

Let's just say that we're not just talking about change of modus operandi here (as in the Sutcliffe example) but there are also other factors to consider. In kelly's case you also have to look at the victimology and the situation she lived in with two men in her closest circuits having probable motives for mer murder. Plus the fact that the massive overkill and destruction of the face fits the elemetns displayed in other interpersonal domestic homicide, where a personal aspect to the crime may be indicated.
But as I said, this has been debated to death on endless threads so I am not getting into it again.

All the best

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

i think that MJK was a ripper victim because it fits the other murders, she had her throat cut and had facial/body mutilations. but im not convinced that martha was a ripper victim because her throat was not cut, which is one of the main links between the ripper murders. but that is only my opinion.

---MJK---

[RonnieKray]

Mary_Jane_Kelly, thank you for replying....you say her throat wasn't cut....Peter Sutcliffe used a lump of wood to insert into one of his victims but never did that with others.

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

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi RonnieKray,

I suggest you read the Martha Tabram thread "Ripper Victim?", where all this is being discussed and debated.

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.

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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!

[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]

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?