Who was Jack's first murder poll!

[Harry D]

Hello, Abby.

Let alone all the other similiarities-The mere fact that Tabram was found on her back, legs spread and had her skirt pushed up like the other ripper victims should seal it for you. And she DID have had stab wounds to the "private" parts.

As I said before, most of the 'similarities' with Tabram are largely circumstantial: she was a prostitute, she died at night, she was killed with a knife, even the posing of the body, these are not unique Ripper traits. This is the kind of occupational hazard that comes from working in a violent neighbourhood.

So if Tabram wasn't a stepping stone in the rippers evolution, how else did he hone his technique before Nichols?? Ive never understood that argument.

I'm not seeing an evolution, Abby. This was a complete shift in focus from someone who stabbed his first victim no less than *39* times! At what point did he realize that the stabbing wasn't doing it for him?

Am I suggesting that Nichols was the Ripper's first kill? Maybe? I wouldn't profess to know either way. However, I'll stop short of accepting Tabram into the canon just because it's convenient. There's theorists who propose that the Ripper was part of the gang that attacked Emma Smith, and that's where he got his taste for murder. It's a nice idea, to paint this 'evolution of Ripper' but it's complete conjecture. How far do we want to keep regressing? All I will say is that the killer's signature still wasn't fully formed after Nichols, as he hadn't begun taking internal organs as trophies but we could see that was his focus.

And I believe that of the cases you listed that Millwood, the torso and smith could have been ripper victims (in that order of likelihood.

That still leaves quite a few murders to reckon with.

don't know who ward was. Farmer was probably a scammer.

Farmer probably was a scammer, I meant Ada Wilson.

On the 15th Sept 1888 an unnamed prostitute claimed that a man tried to trip her to the ground and slash her throat but she raised her arms to defend herself. Susan Ward is the only patient admitted to hospital with these types of injuries at this time, therefore it's just assumed this was the victim's identity.

[John G]

Hi Harry



Let alone all the other similiarities-The mere fact that Tabram was found on her back, legs spread and had her skirt pushed up like the other ripper victims should seal it for you. And she DID have had stab wounds to the "private" parts.



So if Tabram wasn't a stepping stone in the rippers evolution, how else did he hone his technique before Nichols?? Ive never understood that argument.

Yes it was a particularily violent year-the ripper was at his height!!?!!?

And I believe that of the cases you listed that Millwood, the torso and smith could have been ripper victims (in that order of likelihood. don't know who ward was. Farmer was probably a scammer.[/QUOTE]

Hi Abby,

I wouldn't rule out Emily Horsnell, who claimed to have been viciously attacked by a gang, like Smith; she died in November 1887. It has also been speculated that she may have been "raped with a foreign object in the same manner as Smith..." (Westcott, 2014). And Dr Dukes suggested that peritonitis was the likely cause of death, as with Smith. Incredibly, Malvina Haynes was seriously assaulted the same night as Smith, receiving serious head injuries. And Margaret Hames, who knew Smith, was seriously assaulted by a gang a month before Horsnell and spent 20 days in hospital.

Considering the rarity of these crimes, and the extreme violence perpetrated against the victims, I would speculate that JtR may originally have been part of a gang. However, his acts of violence became more and more extreme and unusual, culminating in the assault on Emma Smith. As a consequence, the other gang members may have decided he was a liability, and probably seriously disturbed. JtR therefore realized that he would have to branch out by himself, i.e. if he was to to be able to fully realize his increasingly violent fantasies.

[Abby Normal]

Tabram had one perfunctory wound NEAR to the genitalia area, the rest of the attack was focused in the upper abdomen and chest area. Tabram's killer wasn't interested in the reproductive organs, whereas the Ripper unequivocally was. This wasn't the same mind at work, John. It's also difficult to believe that the killer would've honed his technique in the space of just three weeks with no murders in between.

As for the numbers game, haven't we established that 1888 was a particularly violent chapter in Whitechapel's history? We have the attacks on Emma Smith, Annie Millwood, Annie Farmer, Susan Ward, as well as the Whitehall torso. They can't have all been committed by the Ripper, could they?

Hi Harry

Tabram had one perfunctory wound NEAR to the genitalia area, the rest of the attack was focused in the upper abdomen and chest area. Tabram's killer wasn't interested in the reproductive organs, whereas the Ripper unequivocally was.

Let alone all the other similiarities-The mere fact that Tabram was found on her back, legs spread and had her skirt pushed up like the other ripper victims should seal it for you. And she DID have had stab wounds to the "private" parts.

It's also difficult to believe that the killer would've honed his technique in the space of just three weeks with no murders in between.

So if Tabram wasn't a stepping stone in the rippers evolution, how else did he hone his technique before Nichols?? Ive never understood that argument.

As for the numbers game, haven't we established that 1888 was a particularly violent chapter in Whitechapel's history? We have the attacks on Emma Smith, Annie Millwood, Annie Farmer, Susan Ward, as well as the Whitehall torso. They can't have all been committed by the Ripper, could they?

[/QUOTE]

Yes it was a particularily violent year-the ripper was at his height!!?!!?

And I believe that of the cases you listed that Millwood, the torso and smith could have been ripper victims (in that order of likelihood. don't know who ward was. Farmer was probably a scammer.

[007]

As a new person on this site, being here a little over a month, I am still not allowed to vote in this poll. How long, or how many posts do I need to make, before I am permitted to do so?

Welcome hanway3. If I recall correctly you need to post 10 times before you can vote on polls. But I'm not 100% sure of this. You can see I have posted less than 30 times and I've been able to vote for quite some time.

Again, welcome to Casebook!

[John G]

Tabram had one perfunctory wound NEAR to the genitalia area, the rest of the attack was focused in the upper abdomen and chest area. Tabram's killer wasn't interested in the reproductive organs, whereas the Ripper unequivocally was. This wasn't the same mind at work, John. It's also difficult to believe that the killer would've honed his technique in the space of just three weeks with no murders in between.

As for the numbers game, haven't we established that 1888 was a particularly violent chapter in Whitechapel's history? We have the attacks on Emma Smith, Annie Millwood, Annie Farmer, Susan Ward, as well as the Whitehall torso. They can't have all been committed by the Ripper, could they?

Hi Harry,

My understanding is that Tabram had a cut 3 inches long and 1 inch deep towards the genital area- in fact there was a great deal of blood between the legs, which were separated. The body had also clearly been posed-a highly unusual signature characteristic; her clothing was turned up towards the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of her body exposed.

However, I would agree with you about the explosion in the murder rate in 1888
Whitechapel. In addition to the C5 and Tabram there was Smith (in itself a highly unusual crime), Haynes (seriously injured the same day Smith was attacked), Hames (who survived a brutal attack the year before and was a friend of Smith's), Mylett, and Horsnell, who was murdered on November 1887 and a resident of George Street. However, I consider the Pinchin Street Torso to be part of a separate series-probably intended as a parody of the Whitechapel murders- and, of course, this victim was killed elsewhere and the body dumped

Considering the status quo was more or less restored by 1889 I don't think anyone as yet come up with anything like a satisfactory explanation for what occurred the previous year which, considering how small Whitechapel was, is probably unprecedented in criminological history. However, I wouldn't completely exclude the possibility of two serial killers operating together.

[Harry D]

Tabram was repeatedly stabbed in the genital area and her body posed. These are incredibly rare signature characteristics: only one in every thousand murders involves trauma to the genital area and one in two thousand a combination of trauma to the genital area and posing, as was the case of with Tabram. If we consider the murder rate in Whitechapel outside of 1888, there were no murders in 1886 or 1887 and one in 1889 and 1890. On that basis you could expect a Tabran style murder to occur in Whitechapel once every 4000 years. I would therefore consider it overwhelmingly likely that Tabram was a JtR victim.

Tabram had one perfunctory wound NEAR to the genitalia area, the rest of the attack was focused in the upper abdomen and chest area. Tabram's killer wasn't interested in the reproductive organs, whereas the Ripper unequivocally was. This wasn't the same mind at work, John. It's also difficult to believe that the killer would've honed his technique in the space of just three weeks with no murders in between.

As for the numbers game, haven't we established that 1888 was a particularly violent chapter in Whitechapel's history? We have the attacks on Emma Smith, Annie Millwood, Annie Farmer, Susan Ward, as well as the Whitehall torso. They can't have all been committed by the Ripper, could they?

[John G]

Tabram was repeatedly stabbed in the genital area and her body posed. These are incredibly rare signature characteristics: only one in every thousand murders involves trauma to the genital area and one in two thousand a combination of trauma to the genital area and posing, as was the case of with Tabram. If we consider the murder rate in Whitechapel outside of 1888, there were no murders in 1886 or 1887 and one in 1889 and 1890. On that basis you could expect a Tabran style murder to occur in Whitechapel once every 4000 years. I would therefore consider it overwhelmingly likely that Tabram was a JtR victim.

As to the type of weapon used, having read the opinions of Dr Biggs, the forensic pathologist engaged by Trevor Marriott, I do not think that the subjective opinion of the Victorian GPs can be remotely relied upon: see Marriott, 2015.

[GUT]

But as I said it doesn't surprise me that that is how people have voted.

[Harry D]

Frenzied stabbing of the upper abdomen, no slit throat, pen knife & bayonet used.

*three weeks later*

Methodical slicing of the lower abdomen & genitalia, slit throat, long thin knife used.

Yup, same dude.

I'm sorry but these two killings are chalk & cheese. People just want to welcome Tabram into the canon to tie as many of these murders together into one neat package, even if it runs counter to the evidence.

[GUT]

Tabram with over 50% of the vote...

While I'm not sure it is right, the vote doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Harry D]

Tabram with over 50% of the vote...

[GUT]

As a new person on this site, being here a little over a month, I am still not allowed to vote in this poll. How long, or how many posts do I need to make, before I am permitted to do so?

1. Welcome.

2. Didn't know there was a limit to vote.

[hanway3]

As a new person on this site, being here a little over a month, I am still not allowed to vote in this poll. How long, or how many posts do I need to make, before I am permitted to do so?

[sdreid]

Too bad we don't know more about the Paris murder.

[Fisherman]

Martha Tabram was an occasional prostitute - just like the Ripper victims typically also were.
She was killed very close in time to Nichols.
She was killed in an area that corresponds quite well with the canonical series.
She was killed at a point of time that corresponds quite well with the canonical murders.

Victimologywise, she fits like a glove. But she did not have her abdomen cut open or her neck cut off.

Should that tell us that she was not a Ripper victim? I donīt think so. If she had been killed further down the line, as the perhaps last victim instead of the purported first, I would have had more serious doubts about her. But as it stands, she came before the canonicals, so we may reason that the killers MO had not yet taken full shape.

It is reasoned that the Tabram murder was one of frenzy. That may well be true, but this has to stand back to a more pertinent matter: it was clearly a sexually motivated deed, with the clothes having been lifted up over her body and the lower abdomen and the genital area also having been targetted along with the upper torso.
The fact that many stabs had rained down over her upper torso is not something that should implicate no sexual motivation; the breasts are sexual markers, and the act of dominating a person and inflicting violence at will may equally be an act of sexuality.

It is suggested that the cutting of the necks of the C5 implicates premeditation. In this context, I believe that it is important to note that Rees Ralph Llewellyn believed that the abdominal cutting came before the cutting of the neck in Nicholsī case. And he did not realize that the abdomen was cut until after Nichols had been brought to the mortuary, meaning that Llewellyn made up his mind on the matter only after this had happened - he first accepted that the neck wound was what killed her, but he was apparently struck by the small amounts of blood on the site.
The revealing of the abdominal wounds will have offered an explanation to him: if those wounds were inflicted first, then that could explain the small amounts of blood from the cut neck.

It goes without saying that cutting an abdomen open and cutting a neck are two distinctly different matters. If somebody has a thing for cutting necks, then that somebody would not be very likely to open the abdomen too. If somebody likes cutting abdomens, then why cut the neck off?

Reasonably, it boils down to one set of cuts being the driving force and the other being practically motivated. And that only works one way: It is not practical to cut a belly open in order to clear the way for throatcutting. But it can be a great advantage to cut a neck before you set about cutting the abdomen open, since cutting the neck will ensure that your victim will not fight back and will not scream.
This is why it makes sense to suggest that the Ripper cut the necks first and the abdomens later.

But can we bank on him having had this in mind as he killed Polly Nichols? No we canīt, because this is his first neck-cutting strike, and that measure may have been decided about for reasons that surfaced during the murder.

I think Charles Lechmere killed Nichols. Others think that it was another killer, who came and went before the carmans arrival. No matter what, it applies that if Lechmere was the killer, than Paul came upon him. And if Lechmere was NOT the killer, then he must have arrived very shortly after the killer fled, and thus he seemingly may have been the reason that the killer took off.

In both cases, it applies that if the abdominal wounds were inflicted first, then the killer may have been uncertain about whether the victim was dead or not. And if she was not dead, there was always the chance that she would be able to give the killer away.

Cutting the neck as a coup de grace would strike that risk of the list.

Returning to Tabram, we can see the exact same thing: a coupe de grace. Killeen said that Tabram lived through the ordeal. This he would have established by looking at how blood had exited through the 38 small punctures in Tabramīs body for a fair amount of time. It makes a nice parallel with what Llewellyn said about Nichols.
Then, after that, a much sturdier and longer blade was thrust through the sternum, ensuring death for Tabram. And that stab came last.

Comparing the two victims, we seemingly thus have two murders where the killer allowed his desire to cut into the flesh of a woman and ravage her womanhood with a sexual intent, to take the lead role.
Then, as he decided to leave the bodies, he made sure that neither victim would be able to tell the story. That to me is a significant similarity, and one that describes both killers as men being primarily governed by lust, but nevertheless in control of the situation and cool enough to eradicate any chance for their victims to give them away. Neither man panicked and fled, leaving the vitim to possibly tell the tale of what had happened to them.

This suggestion leaves us with one question, though: If it was the same killer, and if that killer had settled on piercing the heart as the best way of ensuring death, than why did he change that with Nichols?

Maybe because thrusting a knife through the sternum makes a thumping sound as the blade sinks in and the clenched fist over the hilt punches against the chest. If the killer - regardless who he was - of Nichols knew that somebody had entered the silent street in which he was cutting away at the stomach of Polly, he may have realised that cutting the neck would be just as efficient and a lot more silent.

And after the close shave in Bucks Row, he made use of his freshly gained insights on every occasion - just in case.