Who was Jack's first murder poll!

[sdreid]

We don't even know who they were

[sdreid]

Two claimed that they were attacked by a gang.

[sdreid]

Only Millwood claimed to have been attacked by one man. The others weren't around to say one way or the other.

[Rosella]

I veer between Tabram and Nichols (voted Tabram.) I do think that attacks on women began several years earlier though and Jack just proceeded through to his first kill in 1888. I used to discount Tabram in favour of the canonical five, and I'm still not 100% sure she's one of Jack's.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Only Millwood claimed to have been attacked by one man. The others weren't around to say one way or the other.

Eh? You forgot Emma Smith?

[Harry D]

Not sure why Tabram is so popular. Apart from the positioning of the body and location of the crime, I can't see any glaring similarities between her and the canonical murders. It's also a little implausible that in just three weeks the Ripper would've adapted into a new, deliberate MO after the frenzied overkill of Tabram.

[John G]

I've voted for Tabram being the first victim. Of course, it could be said that this was a more frenzied assault than suggested by JTR's mature MO, where it could be argued that subsequent victims were dispatched with clinical efficiency, and she was not eviscerated.

Nonetheless, I think several important factors need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, East London of the period was not as violent as might be commonly thought. Following the Tabram murder the East London Advertiser observed that " The statistics or returns of criminal offences show that, in proportion, there is no more crime, either of a greater or lesser degree, in East London, than in any other part of the metropolis or, for the matter of that, Great Britain."

In fact murder was a particularly rare event. The Annual Report of the Sanitary Conditions of Whitechapel listed no murders at all in the Whiechapel area in 1886 or 1887. And only one murder was recorded in Whitechapel for 1889 and one in 1890: see Keppel and Birnes (2009).

It could also be said that the ingredients present Tabram murder were virtually unprecedented prior to 1888. Certainly, the fact that her genitals were targeted make this, by modern standards at least, a very unusual crime: analysis of modern crimes suggests that genital trauma is present in less than 0.1% of all murder cases (Keppel et al., 2005). Her body also appeared to have been posed, which is also unusual.

That means, taking into account the local murder rate at the time, you would have expected to encounter a murder with these characteristics in Whitechapel less than once every 2,000 years! Considering what was to happen as 1888 progressed this is surely too coincidental.

And, of course, serial killers evolve, learning from their mistakes. Assuming JTR killed Tabram, the frenzied nature of the attack would have left him covered in blood, arguably resulting in the adoption of a more efficient, less risky strategy.

[sdreid]

Tabram's stock is higher than it was 10 years ago but I don't think it's quite as high as it was 1 year ago.

[Abby Normal]

Not sure why Tabram is so popular. Apart from the positioning of the body and location of the crime, I can't see any glaring similarities between her and the canonical murders. It's also a little implausible that in just three weeks the Ripper would've adapted into a new, deliberate MO after the frenzied overkill of Tabram.

Hi Harry
Then how and when did the ripper get his "deliberate MO"? surely it did not spring fully formed with his first victim Polly Nichols?

[Vincenzo]

I am stunned that Martha Tabram leads this poll. No throat cutting = no Saucy Jack, imo.

[sdreid]

I would have been stunned 5 years ago but I'm used to it now.

[Bridewell]

I am stunned that Martha Tabram leads this poll. No throat cutting = no Saucy Jack, imo.

Okay, but no Saucy Jack means a second killer who also targeted the abdomen and genitalia. My understanding is that, whereas a killer's MO is likely to vary, it is the 'signature' which doesn't. I take the view that the signature of JtR was abdominal mutilation, not throat cutting. I concede that the issue (the Tabram candidacy so to speak) is not capable of proof either way.

[Tom_Wescott]

I voted on this poll eons ago. Sadly, I cannot remember who I voted for! If I could re-vote knowing what I know now, I'd likely vote Emily Horsnell, although I'll happily admit that 'I don't know'. Until very recently I thought there was a huge medical divide between Tabram and Nichols, so I accepted Nichols as the first Ripper victim. However, I now believe that the way the killer handled Nichols was actually very similar to what he did to Tabram and the two are therefore connected. Likewise, the medical evidence connects Tabram to Smith, and then Smith back to Horsnell.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Harry D]

Okay, but no Saucy Jack means a second killer who also targeted the abdomen and genitalia. My understanding is that, whereas a killer's MO is likely to vary, it is the 'signature' which doesn't. I take the view that the signature of JtR was abdominal mutilation, not throat cutting. I concede that the issue (the Tabram candidacy so to speak) is not capable of proof either way.

But the signatures aren't the same, Bridewell. Tabram's murder was a frenzied one, as attested to by the repeated stabbings which missed vital organs, whereas the proceeding murders would show a clean dispatch of the victim and a deliberate focus on the abdominal area and viscera. We are therefore left with the conclusion that they were committed by different beasts.

[Harriet the Student]

It doesn't bother me much that Tabram's murder is seemingly so different to that of the later canonical victims if you see it as a first murder where the killer made mistakes. He may never have used a knife on another person before and the attack could have been more panicked than frenzied. A lot of things could have gone wrong, especially if he went in with a preconceived fantasy and Tabram did something that he was not expecting.