Who was Jack's first murder poll!

[sdreid]

Yes I would go for Tabram, even though she was stabbed many times as opposed to cut open.

A welcome from me as well.

[sdreid]

And, about one out of 50 think it's her.

And apparently about the same number think that Jack and the Torso Murder are one in the same.

[sdreid]

The quasquicentennial of the Annie Millwood attack is now nearly upon us.

[sdreid]

She didn't actually die until March 31, more than 4 weeks after the attack.

[sdreid]

We have also just passed the 125th anniversary of the murder of Emma Smith.

[sdreid]

Nichols was the first to have her throat slashed before death as far as we know.

[sdreid]

Paris and Rainham were decapitated so I guess it's possible that they could have been killed with a throat slash. I don't know how closely that was looked for or if it would have been possible to determine due to decomposition.

[sdreid]

I believe that Smith was the only ear injury we know about until Eddowes and Kelly.

[JtRMordke]

Hello everyone! Has been a long time since I posted and I feel inclined to become active again.
It is too bad I voted on this poll several years ago before educating myself on more than what I already knew about the ripper victims, and I unwittingly voted for Polly Nichols. I have since joining casebook significantly changed my mind and am of the opinion that Martha Tabram is likely to be the real first victim by the same hand. Originally I dismissed her because I felt that the wounds did not show an obvious enough connection to the later murders, but there are various indications that she may well have been. While I still cannot be completely sure of this claim, I am more convinced that she was his first victim than I am against.
As an overview then.... The timing was something that struck me – the 8th of August... it follows what appears to be the Ripper’s clock rather remarkably, and while that is not convicting enough in itself for it could have been mere coincidence in both cases, the victim’s wounds were focused on the breasts and the groin, with the usage of ‘the legs’ used to describe one such wound in both in the Evening News and there is reference to a three inch cut in the lower portion of the body in the Observer, hinting to the genitalia. (This is corroborated in reference to Swanson’s notes, where he wrote that there was a stab wound to the private parts.) The Observer also noted that the legs were spread and that no recent intimacy had taken place; again, details that appear in the following Jack the Ripper crimes.
That there were two murder weapons apparently used however(which were clearly not the same as the 6 inch blade we see with Jack), and that her throat was not sliced but stabbed, the evidence here casts doubt initially on her inclusion into the Jack the Ripper canonical murders. Interestingly it could also hint to an experimental first where the murderer is ill prepared (hence, pen knife), has not discovered a preferred way of routinely silencing them his victims, and moreover is in need to discern what particular method of mutilation will achieve his ultimate satisfaction. In that light, I would not rush to the conclusion that she is definitely a Ripper victim, but it is very likely.

[Abby Normal]

Hello everyone! Has been a long time since I posted and I feel inclined to become active again.
It is too bad I voted on this poll several years ago before educating myself on more than what I already knew about the ripper victims, and I unwittingly voted for Polly Nichols. I have since joining casebook significantly changed my mind and am of the opinion that Martha Tabram is likely to be the real first victim by the same hand. Originally I dismissed her because I felt that the wounds did not show an obvious enough connection to the later murders, but there are various indications that she may well have been. While I still cannot be completely sure of this claim, I am more convinced that she was his first victim than I am against.
As an overview then.... The timing was something that struck me – the 8th of August... it follows what appears to be the Ripper’s clock rather remarkably, and while that is not convicting enough in itself for it could have been mere coincidence in both cases, the victim’s wounds were focused on the breasts and the groin, with the usage of ‘the legs’ used to describe one such wound in both in the Evening News and there is reference to a three inch cut in the lower portion of the body in the Observer, hinting to the genitalia. (This is corroborated in reference to Swanson’s notes, where he wrote that there was a stab wound to the private parts.) The Observer also noted that the legs were spread and that no recent intimacy had taken place; again, details that appear in the following Jack the Ripper crimes.
That there were two murder weapons apparently used however(which were clearly not the same as the 6 inch blade we see with Jack), and that her throat was not sliced but stabbed, the evidence here casts doubt initially on her inclusion into the Jack the Ripper canonical murders. Interestingly it could also hint to an experimental first where the murderer is ill prepared (hence, pen knife), has not discovered a preferred way of routinely silencing them his victims, and moreover is in need to discern what particular method of mutilation will achieve his ultimate satisfaction. In that light, I would not rush to the conclusion that she is definitely a Ripper victim, but it is very likely.

totally agree. good talk.

[DVV]

I trust he killed Abel first.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

And behold!

I trust he killed Abel first.

Abel had it coming. Death that is. For clarity. All things shall pass. After us the deluge. We shall not last. The die is cast. Ex Nihilo.

[MidnightIsolde_55]

Martha Tabram - first victim?

This is my first post!
For Jack's first victim, I am drawn towards Martha, although I am not entirely decided on it. While aspects of her murder do remind me of the generally accepted victims, others make me doubt it.

In terms of the argument for her being the first victim:
The main thing that stands out to me having read Sugden's book are the fact that she was laying down with her ''clothes turned up as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs open'' as though sexual intercourse had taken place - yet Dr. Killeen didn't believe there to be any indication that it had. So we can assume that the killer must have 'displayed' her. As the later victims were also laid in this manner, it's possible that Tabram's killer was the same as theirs.
Also, it is possible that she may have been strangled prior to the knife wounds which would fit with 'Jack the Ripper's' likely modus operandi. However, this possible strangulation is only asserted in a press report so we cannot be sure of it being true.
What is similar to the accepted victims is that no one saw or heard anything and there was no trace of blood accept for on and around the body.
Interestingly her death, on the 7th of August, would fit with the timetable of the murderer.
What makes me doubt her being the first (or at least an earlier victim) are that there were no indications of anatomical knowledge reported. Granted, the extent of this knowledge varies with the other victims. The killer of Polly Nichols is reported as having ''some rough anatomical knowledge'' while that of Chapman was thought to show skilful anatomical knowledge by Dr. Phillips. Indeed, the killing of Tabram seems to me rather imprecise and frenzied - I would assume that someone with even basic anatomical knowledge would be more systematic. However, if she was indeed strangled prior to the knife wounds being made, that does imply some sort of plan because strangulation would have subdued or killed Tabram and therefore facilitated the murderer to be able to make the knife wounds if that was his ultimate goal. Certainly, the 39 stab wounds were excessive - the one to the chest by a dagger or bayonet would have been enough to kill her so the others seem to be for the sake of doing it and not out of necessity.
Still, I would have thought that someone intending to kill would be better prepared than with a penknife. But, again, the excessive nature of the stabbing and the 'display' of her body are and were considered unusually extreme at the time. I'm not sure that in a spur of the moment killing we would see such excessive stabbing in a way which appears to be for their own sake. I think that a one-off killer who didn't set out to kill would have stabbed once and possibly a few more times, but 39 times may suggest that they provided the killer with some sort of gratification - especially if she was strangled first in which case the stabbing was needless and must have been simply to fulfil the murderer's desires.

Perhaps she could be JtR's first kill which may account for the unrefined nature of it, after which he realised a more effective method and discarded the penknife in favour of the dagger-like weapon? I'm still unsure though whether a stabbing, frenzied killer could transform into a slicing and more precise killer just weeks later. That said, I do find the sexual display of her body, possible strangulation before knife wounds being inflicted and the excessive nature of the stab wounds, concentrated around the breasts and lower body/private area - in other words sexual - very comparable.

Yours truly,
Isolde

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Isolde

Welcome to the boards...I think that's a pretty fair first post...you clearly recognise both sides of the Tabram debate, (which has been quite heated in the past).

Personally, although I too see both sides, like you, on balance, I think she just might've been a first try out, (and if she wasn't, then I'm damned sure there'd have to be another one somewhere or other!).

The two knives argument has been pretty heated too - but if for at least the first thirty eight wounds you think clasp knife (rather than what we would today call a pen knife) then you might find it a little more helpful.

As the Doctor seemed to think the final wound was the one that actually extinguished life, do you think he might've switched to a second knife out of exasperation that the first hadn't quite finished her off, or do you think he might just've stabbed harder so that the blade went deeper and the hilt/body of the knife damaged the flesh/bone differently?

I like your last paragraph. In that connection, have you tried adding together the listed wounds and comparing them to the total?

All the best

Dave

[Abby Normal]

This is my first post!
For Jack's first victim, I am drawn towards Martha, although I am not entirely decided on it. While aspects of her murder do remind me of the generally accepted victims, others make me doubt it.

In terms of the argument for her being the first victim:
The main thing that stands out to me having read Sugden's book are the fact that she was laying down with her ''clothes turned up as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs open'' as though sexual intercourse had taken place - yet Dr. Killeen didn't believe there to be any indication that it had. So we can assume that the killer must have 'displayed' her. As the later victims were also laid in this manner, it's possible that Tabram's killer was the same as theirs.
Also, it is possible that she may have been strangled prior to the knife wounds which would fit with 'Jack the Ripper's' likely modus operandi. However, this possible strangulation is only asserted in a press report so we cannot be sure of it being true.
What is similar to the accepted victims is that no one saw or heard anything and there was no trace of blood accept for on and around the body.
Interestingly her death, on the 7th of August, would fit with the timetable of the murderer.
What makes me doubt her being the first (or at least an earlier victim) are that there were no indications of anatomical knowledge reported. Granted, the extent of this knowledge varies with the other victims. The killer of Polly Nichols is reported as having ''some rough anatomical knowledge'' while that of Chapman was thought to show skilful anatomical knowledge by Dr. Phillips. Indeed, the killing of Tabram seems to me rather imprecise and frenzied - I would assume that someone with even basic anatomical knowledge would be more systematic. However, if she was indeed strangled prior to the knife wounds being made, that does imply some sort of plan because strangulation would have subdued or killed Tabram and therefore facilitated the murderer to be able to make the knife wounds if that was his ultimate goal. Certainly, the 39 stab wounds were excessive - the one to the chest by a dagger or bayonet would have been enough to kill her so the others seem to be for the sake of doing it and not out of necessity.
Still, I would have thought that someone intending to kill would be better prepared than with a penknife. But, again, the excessive nature of the stabbing and the 'display' of her body are and were considered unusually extreme at the time. I'm not sure that in a spur of the moment killing we would see such excessive stabbing in a way which appears to be for their own sake. I think that a one-off killer who didn't set out to kill would have stabbed once and possibly a few more times, but 39 times may suggest that they provided the killer with some sort of gratification - especially if she was strangled first in which case the stabbing was needless and must have been simply to fulfil the murderer's desires.

Perhaps she could be JtR's first kill which may account for the unrefined nature of it, after which he realised a more effective method and discarded the penknife in favour of the dagger-like weapon? I'm still unsure though whether a stabbing, frenzied killer could transform into a slicing and more precise killer just weeks later. That said, I do find the sexual display of her body, possible strangulation before knife wounds being inflicted and the excessive nature of the stab wounds, concentrated around the breasts and lower body/private area - in other words sexual - very comparable.

Yours truly,
Isolde

Hi Midnight
Welcome and good first post. I pretty much agree with everything you say.

Signs of strangulation
Victimology
Place and time
Unsolved
Murder by knife
Found on back with clothes turned up(like you I find this very significant-it's the final straw for me)
Private parts targeted
Timing in the sequence of murders- I have also made this point many times here. She is killed in beginning of month. Then next victim end of month and so on. Victims are killed in beginning and then end of month. She fits that pattern.
No money found on person
Killed during holiday


I think it likely that Wilson and Millwood were first attempts and that Tabram was first murder in an escalation of his learning of what really turned him on and how to best to achieve it. History has shown us that serial killers do this and are fast learners.