Who was Jack's first murder poll!

[gnote]

There's a lot more similarity between Millwood and Tabram than there is between Tabram and Nichols.. right? But that focus on the lower body..

And then we have Emma Smith between the two. There are many similarities as well, but i think it's unlikely the same man used a knife on Millwood, blunt object(s) on Smith and then back to multiple stab wounds on Tabram.

None of this makes it completely out of the question but i don't think we are looking at one individual responsible for all of these eight murders.

[curious4]

Hello Harry,

You don't think it would take time to build up to enacting a fantasy involving cutting a human being to ribbons and then have time to escape? Or perhaps he/she was satisfied after what he/she had done to the victim, but needed to do more the next time to get the same thrill/high.

Best wishes,
C4

[Ausgirl]

And then we have Emma Smith between the two. There are many similarities as well, but i think it's unlikely the same man used a knife on Millwood, blunt object(s) on Smith and then back to multiple stab wounds on Tabram.

None of this makes it completely out of the question but i don't think we are looking at one individual responsible for all of these eight murders.

Oh, I agree. I can't see Smith as anywhere close to a Ripper victim - the woman herself described a group of assailants, who sound a lot like a gang of criminals. And subsequently, what they did to her isn't very Ripper-like, at all.

Millwood and Tabram are a different matter. The matter of weeks between Tabram and the first canonical victim make the notion of 'evolution' seem quite abrupt, but it's still possible. I'm sure there's other killers who've done so, as abruptly.

Also, worsening delusions could account for the apparent desire to get 'inside' the victims and rummage about.

I think they can't be utterly dismissed as potential early victims, in any case.

[Harry D]

Hi Harry
Nice response and I see what your saying but..

The ripper apparently subdued his victims by strangling. He did that with Tabram. same MO. no cut throat but maybe he learned from her that he needs to do that next. maybe she came too while he was stabbing her, struggled, and he then killed her with the stab to the heart.
He had something about the abdomen and private parts, so he targeted those with tabram, stabbing, but not ripping. The stabbing did something for him but next time he needed more-ripping, then he wanted trophys.

re your point on "little more than donors". I disagree. later victims had more knife activity than just procuring organs-cuts to the face, arms, legs. removal of breasts etc. And I think that most experts agree that trophys aren't necessarily the end all of the killers desire. just a way to prolong and relive the primary motivation-which in my view is pretty obvious with the ripper-what his knife could do to the female body.

rarely if ever, do serial killers commence with their MO, or even their sigs, full formed. And if Tabram isn't a stepping stone, then who/what was?

And that begs the question, you would have to believe his efficient MO for dispatching victims sprung fully formed (and completely successful) then with Polly, if she was his first.

I highly doubt it.

Hello, Abby.

Stranglulation isn't exactly a novel method of subduing someone, though. At the risk of repeating myself, let's say that Tabram's killer wasn't an aggrieved punter who lost his rag, but a murderer who used her to live out his fantasy. This was obviously a piquerist who derived enjoyment from stabbing the hell out of his victim to the point of overkill. If that's what floats the killer's boat then he's not going to change tack because it's less convenient.

Whoever killed C1 & C2 was not the same mind at work. You would expect to see some level of piquerism and intensity present in those murders but it's notable by its absence. Instead, we see a clinical and methodical hand who knew what he was doing and what he wanted. Let me clarify that when I referred to the victims as 'donors' I was talking specifically about the first two victims. Eddowes probably was, and I think the lack of skill compared to the first two might be due to her extra layers that night, which might explain why the Ripper took his frustrations out on her face. Stride is Stride, and I'm having growing doubts about Mary Kelly.

[gnote]

Hello, Abby.

Stranglulation isn't exactly a novel method of subduing someone, though. At the risk of repeating myself, let's say that Tabram's killer wasn't an aggrieved punter who lost his rag, but a murderer who used her to live out his fantasy. This was obviously a piquerist who derived enjoyment from stabbing the hell out of his victim to the point of overkill. If that's what floats the killer's boat then he's not going to change tack because it's less convenient.

Whoever killed C1 & C2 was not the same mind at work. You would expect to see some level of piquerism and intensity present in those murders but it's notable by its absence. Instead, we see a clinical and methodical hand who knew what he was doing and what he wanted. Let me clarify that when I referred to the victims as 'donors' I was talking specifically about the first two victims. Eddowes probably was, and I think the lack of skill compared to the first two might be due to her extra layers that night, which might explain why the Ripper took his frustrations out on her face. Stride is Stride, and I'm having growing doubts about Mary Kelly.

While i don't necessarily disagree, you didn't answer the actual questions posted by Abby.


rarely if ever, do serial killers commence with their MO, or even their sigs, full formed. And if Tabram isn't a stepping stone, then who/what was?

And that begs the question, you would have to believe his efficient MO for dispatching victims sprung fully formed (and completely successful) then with Polly, if she was his first.

[Harry D]

The Ripper had to start somewhere. I don't see why Nichols couldn't have been his first murder victim. After all, the Ripper's MO was not 'fully formed' yet either until C2. It was only then that we see that the killer wanted to disembowel his victims. For whatever reason, he never accomplished that with C1, perhaps he botched the job, or more likely was disturbed by someone (Lechmere?).

[pinkmoon]

If our killer hadn't been disturbed then I think poor Polly would have suffered the same mutalations as the other poor victims ......like I said before whoever our killer was he knew how to kill quickly I think this aspect of the murders tends to be forgotten about when people put forward names for the identity of jack the ripper.

[gnote]

If our killer hadn't been disturbed then I think poor Polly would have suffered the same mutalations as the other poor victims ......like I said before whoever our killer was he knew how to kill quickly I think this aspect of the murders tends to be forgotten about when people put forward names for the identity of jack the ripper.

I agree on the first part in regards to him probably being disturbed. The knowing how to kill quickly is a part is where the divergence of opinion begins.

If Polly was the first victim i think it's most likely the Ripper had some form of prior expertise which would apply. (perhaps the military as one example) If not, "on the job training" would be required like most other burgeoning psychopaths.

I'm inclined to believe the latter more probable.

[sdreid]

I agree the Ripper was probably disturbed with Polly or started hearing things and thought he was about to be.

[sdreid]

I agree the Ripper was probably disturbed with Polly or started hearing things and thought he was about to be.

Serial killers tend to be more paranoid/careful when they are just starting out.

[Batman]

Tabram was always in the running but got grouped with Smith.

Sugden sold me on Tabram.
Recently, for me, Keppel compounded this with his forensic paper on JtR and picquerism.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.22/abstract

I highly recommended it. I was shown it here on CB a few days ago but my tag has been there for months.

[sdreid]

Tabram waxes and wanes which is why she's not considered a canonical I suppose.

[Harry D]

I've yet to read a convincing argument for canonizing Tabram.

[John G]

I'm torn between Tabram and Smith.

[Abby Normal]

I've yet to read a convincing argument for canonizing Tabram.

Hi Harry
In a nutshell, can you tell me why you DONT think she was a ripper victim?