The increasing acceptance of Martha Tabram...

[Phil H]

Something must have triggered the murderer of Nichols to attack his first unfortunate, and it seems a tad unlikely that a man with no previous attempts, practice or experience under his belt, and only his fantasies as a guide, would have just decided to go out one night with a very sharp knife and do what he did in Buck's Row.

The flaw with that argument is that Polly did nt need to have been "Jack's" first attack, and tabram does not HAVE to be his work, in order to supply that need. IMHO, other possible East End victims are available and are, to me, more convincing than Tabram.

We surely have to be VERY careful about cause and effect and creating linkages here, that while superficially attractive have only wishful thuinking to sustain them.

Something tells me this man was at the very least accustomed to encounters with street walkers before his first silently efficient kill.

Not sure which "man" you mean: the killer of tabram or of Polly? There need not only be ONE, of course - and we should be careful about thinking in terms of one only (my view). It is perfectly possible, intellectually, to treat the two crimes separately and not possible links/similarities while maintaining a proper distance.

The alternative is that the man you describe as emotional and angry enough to inflict 39 stab wounds on Tabram (a woman he had probably only met that night) immediately signed up for anger management classes and never again lost it to the same degree.

Again, flawd logic, I'm afraid. The killer of Tabram, if a soldier, might have been posted away or abroad. As another possibility, there were TWO attackers and the circumstances never arose where one egged the other on etc. Finally, there must be many cases of a one-off crime of passion - extremely violent - arising from specific circumstances, where the killer never killed again. All are as valid IMO as your option.

Couldn't the subsequent murders have been the ripper's way of managing the anger he had felt towards Tabram, and channelling it all into acting out his long held violent fantasies concerning the female body?

It could have been, but again there are many other options/possibilities. In any case, would such motivation ever be provable even if we knew the killer's identity?

He didn't need to be outwardly angry with Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes if they did exactly what he asked of them, but it could explain Stride if she made him as angry as Tabram had, but he had learned by then to chanel it into a single swipe of a knife fit for purpose.

If you want to believe that, feel free - I find it a melange of hypothesis and explanation of one death (Stride) that we do not know for sure to be the Ripper's work, as the MO is different or incomplete.

phil

[caz]

Anger management?

Hi Frank,

The issue of the clothing could be a result of her having her back to a wall and sliding down it as he stabs away, pulling her lower clothing up.

I believe that a relevant factor here when assessing her killer is that he was quite obviously not a slasher. Or a slicer. Or someone who wanted to perform any pseudo surgical acts. He was emotional. Angry. And he had with him a weapon that would usually be used to whittle wood with.

Best regards

But Mike, the possibility has been discussed that the ripper didn't have murder on his mind that night but could have encountered Tabram, become emotional and angry about something she said or did, and proceeded to attack her with whatever he had on his person that could be used as a weapon.

Something must have triggered the murderer of Nichols to attack his first unfortunate, and it seems a tad unlikely that a man with no previous attempts, practice or experience under his belt, and only his fantasies as a guide, would have just decided to go out one night with a very sharp knife and do what he did in Buck's Row.

Something tells me this man was at the very least accustomed to encounters with street walkers before his first silently efficient kill.

The alternative is that the man you describe as emotional and angry enough to inflict 39 stab wounds on Tabram (a woman he had probably only met that night) immediately signed up for anger management classes and never again lost it to the same degree.

Couldn't the subsequent murders have been the ripper's way of managing the anger he had felt towards Tabram, and channelling it all into acting out his long held violent fantasies concerning the female body? He didn't need to be outwardly angry with Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes if they did exactly what he asked of them, but it could explain Stride if she made him as angry as Tabram had, but he had learned by then to chanel it into a single swipe of a knife fit for purpose.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Phil,

I don't think we need to bother with euphemisms before we can establish a link between Tabram and the other victims. In my view, the important link is formed by the position she was found in, the state of the dress and the fact that there was a cut to the lower part of her body. And I don’t believe there can be much doubt, if any, about the notion that she was found this way.

From all the different versions of the statements of Reeves and PC Barrett we can quite safely conclude that Tabram was lying on her back with her clothes turned up. Then there’s the fact that Swanson stated in his overall summary that there was at least one wound to Tabram’s private part. It seems only fair to conclude that whoever inflicted the wound to her private part was morbidly interested in what was below the skirts, which, to me, is the most important hallmark of the Ripper.

That, however, doesn't mean that the Ripper was actually responsible for her murder. Reading and/or hearing about it may very well just have pushed him over the egde.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Good post. I don't know how much the ripper could have read or heard about Emma Smith, attacked on a Bank Holiday like Tabram, but it seems equally fair to conclude in Smith's case that whoever inflicted the injury to her private parts was 'morbidly interested in what was below the skirts'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Phil,

I don't think we need to bother with euphemisms before we can establish a link between Tabram and the other victims. In my view, the important link is formed by the position she was found in, the state of the dress and the fact that there was a cut to the lower part of her body. And I don’t believe there can be much doubt, if any, about the notion that she was found this way.

From all the different versions of the statements of Reeves and PC Barrett we can quite safely conclude that Tabram was lying on her back with her clothes turned up. Then there’s the fact that Swanson stated in his overall summary that there was at least one wound to Tabram’s private part. It seems only fair to conclude that whoever inflicted the wound to her private part was morbidly interested in what was below the skirts, which, to me, is the most important hallmark of the Ripper.

That, however, doesn't mean that the Ripper was actually responsible for her murder. Reading and/or hearing about it may very well just have pushed him over the egde.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

The issue of the clothing could be a result of her having her back to a wall and sliding down it as he stabs away, pulling her lower clothing up.

I believe that a relevant factor here when assessing her killer is that he was quite obviously not a slasher. Or a slicer. Or someone who wanted to perform any pseudo surgical acts. He was emotional. Angry. And he had with him a weapon that would usually be used to whittle wood with.

Best regards

[RavenDarkendale]

Hello Ravendarkendale,

Not necessarily, could also point to someone getting very, very excited.

Best wishes,
C4

True enough, but most people who have the unenviable job of trying to get inside the psychopaths heads point to things like this as personal. Of course there is always the exception that proves the rule...

Tried to find where I got this, possibly in the book The Cases That Haunt Us by America's foremost expert on criminal profiling and twenty-five-year FBI veteran John Douglas. In his book The Cases That Haunt Us, former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas has asserted that behavioral clues gathered from the murders all point to a person "known to the police as David Cohen ... or someone very much like him". Also try Mindhunter by the same author

Douglass worked almost exclusively on serial killer cases. He interviewed some of the most notable violent criminals in recent history as part of the study, including David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, Lynette Fromme, Arthur Bremer, Sara Jane Moore, Edmund Kemper, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Dennis Rader, Richard Speck, Monte Rissell, Donald Harvey, Joseph Kondro and Joseph Paul Franklin. He used the information gleaned from these interviews in the book Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives, followed by the Crime Classification Manual

He was a consultant on the Jon Benet Ramsey case and almost died from overwork trying to sort out the Green River Killer mess. He knows his stuff!

[Bridewell]

That, however, doesn't mean that the Ripper was actually responsible for her murder. Reading and/or hearing about it may very well just have pushed him over the edge.

If this is a reference to the Tabram murder, how could he be pushed over the edge by reading and hearing about things which haven't happened yet?

Edited to add:

Apologies. I've just realised you were suggesting that the Ripper was pushed over the edge by reading about the Tabram murder.

[curious4]

Hello Ravendarkendale,

Not necessarily, could also point to someone getting very, very excited.

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Ah, contentious as ever....I didn't say Albert DeSalvo was the Boston Strangler.

George Nasser is the one who a number of people think was the real Boston Strangler. DeSalvo is reputed to have confessed to Nasser, while some suggest DeSalvo was actually fed the details by Nasser because DeSalvo had an identity problem he wanted to 'be somebody'.

Either way, the story comes from the Boston Strangler, lets not get sidetracked on minutiae.

.

[RivkahChaya]

I'd have to go through the Boston Strangler book for a name but, he stabbed one of his victims multiple times, in a frenzy, like Tabram.

When asked, the reason he gave was, "she just wouldn't shut up!"

In Tabram's case the witnesses all said they never heard anything, but what else would a witness say when they simply did not wish to get involved.

.

Not a good example. The man who confessed to the Boston Strangler crimes did so as part of a plea deal, and was never actually convicted of them. Most experts believe that most of the crimes attributed to a "Boston Strangler" were committed by two serial killers, one who targeted old women who were white, and one who targeted very young women who lived alone, of different races, plus, two other murders, one of which was a domestic battery, and the other of which was a burglary, where the resident surprised the killer, who had not intended to kill anyone, and tried to stage the scene as a "Boston Strangler" killing after the fact.

When I read about it maybe ten years ago, the consensus was that Albert DeSalvo had not killed any of the women. I think that has changed, though, and now his is regarded as having killed the young women-- I did read one theory that he killed only the white women, and the killer of the non-white women took advantage of his MO to stay under the radar. That sounded a little far-fetched when I read it, and it wasn't the idea itself, but something about the writer's demeanor and too many assumptions predicated on other assumptions.

However, it is true that while there is little doubt that DeSalvo was at best an urban Ed Gein, for whom women were flesh puppets, and he had committed rape, his confession to the whole of the Boston Stranglings was coerced, as it was part of a plea bargain including another set of crimes for which the police had solid evidence against him, that got him a life sentence rather than death.

[Wickerman]

I do think Tabram was a victim of JtR, but there's also this to consider. 39 stab wounds usually would point to this being personal. Makes you wonder if she knew him.

I'd have to go through the Boston Strangler book for a name but, he stabbed one of his victims multiple times, in a frenzy, like Tabram.

When asked, the reason he gave was, "she just wouldn't shut up!"

In Tabram's case the witnesses all said they never heard anything, but what else would a witness say when they simply did not wish to get involved.

.

[RavenDarkendale]

I do think Tabram was a victim of JtR, but there's also this to consider. 39 stab wounds usually would point to this being personal. Makes you wonder if she knew him.

[FrankO]

The point from recent posts that HAVE made me look again at this case is the suggestion that Martha did suffer from some form of abdominal/genital mutilation, but that this was covered by euphemisms in the press. Now, IF Martha was wounded in that way, I would take the linkage MUCH more seriously. I think that could change the whole ball-game.

Hi Phil,

I don't think we need to bother with euphemisms before we can establish a link between Tabram and the other victims. In my view, the important link is formed by the position she was found in, the state of the dress and the fact that there was a cut to the lower part of her body. And I don’t believe there can be much doubt, if any, about the notion that she was found this way.

From all the different versions of the statements of Reeves and PC Barrett we can quite safely conclude that Tabram was lying on her back with her clothes turned up. Then there’s the fact that Swanson stated in his overall summary that there was at least one wound to Tabram’s private part. It seems only fair to conclude that whoever inflicted the wound to her private part was morbidly interested in what was below the skirts, which, to me, is the most important hallmark of the Ripper.

That, however, doesn't mean that the Ripper was actually responsible for her murder. Reading and/or hearing about it may very well just have pushed him over the egde.

All the best,
Frank

[Wickerman]

... That is quite different to someone who walks out of their door at night and sets off, on foot, in search of any suitable victim - invariably a stranger - to butcher them for purely for kicks. He doesn't have anything like the geographical restraints of the typical one-off killer.

Hello Ben.

Agreed, but such a conclusion assumes we know the motive.
With an unknown killer(s), we cannot conclude the murders were for kicks until he is caught.

.

[Ben]

Another thought: If it is true serial killers likely kill their first victim close to their home, and if Jack really dropped the piece of Catherine Eddowes' apron on his way home, well, look ...

Indeed, K-453, it would lend weight to the premise that the killer lived relatively centrally to his criminal map. John Douglas, an expert criminologist with many decades of experience studying serial murders, considers it likely that the killer lived or worked in close proximity to his first murder, and if that was Tabram, that would indicate a bolt-hole located more or less in the heart of the kill zone. And let's face it, we ought to be far more interested in what actual experts in this particular field consider likely or plausible, as opposed to hobbyists who pooh-pooh such suggestions based on no expertise at all.

Hi Jon,

With the first murder he does not know he is a serial killer at this point. He is just another murderer, of one. Therefore, does it also ring true that all single murders are committed near to the killers home? (answer - no, it is not true).

That's only because the overwhelmingly vast majority of one-off murders are committed by people who target a particular individual (usually someone well-known to them) for a particular reason - jealousy, money, revenge etc. The murder location will, in those cases, be dictated by where the intended victim lives. That is quite different to someone who walks out of their door at night and sets off, on foot, in search of any suitable victim - invariably a stranger - to butcher them for purely for kicks. He doesn't have anything like the geographical restraints of the typical one-off killer.

All the best,
Ben

[RivkahChaya]

My friend's dad had referred to the man's offending appendage as his "John Thomas" (which I had not heard before and it made me giggle) but the WPC suggested that for the purposes of the statement we should say that the man showed us "the lower part of his body".

Howzat?

Love,

Caz
X

In the Bible, there are several places where "feet" are a euphemism for "genitals," and a couple of other places where most scholars agree that "thigh" is used as a substitute for "testicles."

I'm pretty sure the expression "John Thomas" is why the actor Jonathan Taylor Thomas uses his middle name professionally. Seriously, what were his parents thinking? I mean, the expression isn't that common here, but it's not like no one knows it. They must have known someone who could have clued them in over nine months.

He played a character named "Randy" on a very long-running TV series. If that show ever aired across the pond, I'll bet you all got a really good laugh.