Stabbed in the throat...

[Sam Flynn]

For what we know, JtR became JtR with the Hanbury Street's murder, and even Nichols', retrospectively, looks uncompleted.

Apropos Nichols - perhaps he hadn't worked out the "throwing the intestines out of the way makes it easier to get the abdominal organs" trick yet. That would explain why the Nichols mutilation appears "incomplete", leaves a natural progression (in terms of technique) to the Chapman murder, whilst at the same time preserving the same end-game of possessing a victim's internal organs.

As for the Tabram → Nichols transition, it's quite a leap in comparison.

[Ben]

If - at least for the sake of argument - we accept Tabram as a JtR's victim, then the killer can hardly be a slaughterer, butcher, etc, - I mean, someone accustomed to slice throats.

Exactly, David.

It was observed from the later "canonicals" that the killer was "no stranger to the knife", and indeed he wasn't - by that stage he'd already killed more than one victim and probably attacked more besides. If Jack was responsible for the Tabram murder, as I believe he was, that was his period of being a relative "stranger to the knife" (I say "relative" because I feel there's a strong chance that he attacked both Millwood and Wilson).

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

A possible answer would be that, at the time of Tabram's murder, the killer was not ready yet to realize fully his horrible fantasy. However, instead of dispatching Martha like a beg (which would have been too frustrating), he stabbed her crazily (something like an ersatz, a "pis-aller désordonné"). For what we know, JtR became JtR with the Hanbury Street's murder, and even Nichols', retrospectively, looks uncompleted.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,
...and still mutilating faces and lifting out the abdomen were new and unexpected deeds.

Absolutely, Dave - at least the "mutilating faces" bit (albeit cuts, not stabs). As I said, heaving the intestines out of the way could simply have been - and in my view, probably were - a mere byproduct of Jack's desire to gain easier access to the abdominal organs.

If - at least for the sake of argument - we accept Tabram as a JtR's victim, then the killer can hardly be a slaughterer, butcher, etc, - I mean, someone accustomed to slice throats.

A very interesting point indeed, although some might argue that Jack decided not to use his slaughterman's skills on Tabram. Which begs the question - why didn't he, if he possessed a killing technique that he knew would work?

[DVV]

Hi Sam,
...and still mutilating faces and lifting out the abdomen were new and unexpected deeds.
If - at least for the sake of argument - we accept Tabram as a JtR's victim, then the killer can hardly be a slaughterer, butcher, etc, - I mean, someone accustomed to slice throats.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Dave,

But Nichols was stabbed in the "private parts", Eddowes in the left groin and liver.

They could quite easily have been collateral damage caused by the knife being used to cut flesh in the vicinity of those organs, were rather small wounds, and outnumbered in both size and number by the cuts inflicted on the body.

lifting out Chapman's intestine had to be a new "vibe" also

A necessary manoeuvre to clear the abdomen and get at the abdominal organs more easily.

and mutilating faces, in Eddowes and Kelly's cases, also.

These were still cuts and not stabs.

[DVV]

the explosive sensation of punching your knife into a body multiple times arguably doesn't generate the same vibe as the slicing technique adopted in subsequent murders.

One problem here is that Tabram's murderer, even if he is JtR, doesn't fully "deserve" to be called Jack the Ripper. It's difficult to see Jack as a beginner...
But Nichols was stabbed in the "private parts", Eddowes in the left groin and liver. Of course, I admit that the fact that Tabram had not her throat sliced makes a difference with the canonicals, but at the same time, lifting out Chapman's intestine had to be a new "vibe" also, and mutilating faces, in Eddowes and Kelly's cases, also.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

Would it not be too outrageous to suggest that these qualitative differences be a natural step for a fledling killer ?

I wouldn't rule it out, although it has to be said that the killer didn't take long to fledge, if that were the case. Even then, I believe the differences are quite significant - the explosive sensation of punching your knife into a body multiple times arguably doesn't generate the same vibe as the slicing technique adopted in subsequent murders. Murders in which, incidentally, stab-wounds were to feature very rarely, if at all.

You'll note from one of my earlier posts on this thread that I personally rate Tabram as a more likely Ripper victim than Stride, but that doesn't mean I'm completely sold on the idea of Tabram's definitely being "one of Jack's".

I cannot disagree with this but there were no major arteries opened so Martha would have died comparibly slowly to the cut throat victims, hence a frenzied attack to throat and chest.

I can't see how that would follow, if the blow to the heart was what killed her first, with the other stabs being inflicted afterwards. I don't think the killer set about peppering her neck with wounds in the hope that she'd sprinkle herself to death.

[Jon Guy]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;37968]
I should point out, however, that Swanson's quirky spelling of "Keeling" also appears in several press reports of the inquest, and this suggests that some of Swanson's info, on this case at least, may have been taken from newspaper cuttings.Given a supine body, slashes to the abdomen require a sustained longitudinal motion of the knife using mainly the blade, whereas stabs consist of rapid vertical movements involving primarily the point. The two actions - and the effect they produce on the corpse - are quite distinct, and any comparison between what happened to Tabram and Nichols need to bear these qualitative differences in mind.[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;37968]

Would it not be too outrageous to suggest that these qualitative differences be a natural step for a fledling killer ?
For an example look at the wound to Pollys privates compared to what happened to Chapman`s bits .

Also, the majority of Tabram's abdominal wounds were undoubtedly in the upper abdomen - indeed, some newspaper accounts of the inquest have Killeen as stating that only one wound (the 3" one) was "in the lower body". This is, in any case apparent given the multiple punctures sustained by the liver, spleen and stomach - which, added to the stab-wounds to the chest and neck, seem to vouch for her killer demonstrating a distinctly "top-heavy" bias on this occasion.

I cannot disagree with this but there were no major arteries opened so Martha would have died comparibly slowly to the cut throat victims, hence a frenzied attack to throat and chest.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

As given by Swanson :
"she had been stabbed on body, neck and private parts".

Swanson's summary report, written sometime in September, says:

"Dr Keeling [sic] of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on the body, and neck, and private part [NB: singular] with a knife or dagger".

Given that this was a summary report of the Tabram investigation written at the end, rather than an on-the-spot inventory of the wounds at the time, we can't place too much trust in the clinical aspects of her death. That's by no means intended to reflect badly on Swanson, incidentally, as his report was never intended to be used for such a purpose.

I should point out, however, that Swanson's quirky spelling of "Keeling" also appears in several press reports of the inquest, and this suggests that some of Swanson's info, on this case at least, may have been taken from newspaper cuttings.

In comparison, how many slashes were there on Nichols abdomen ? Possibly around ten, not far off the number of stabs in Tabrams abdomen.

Given a supine body, slashes to the abdomen require a sustained longitudinal motion of the knife using mainly the blade, whereas stabs consist of rapid vertical movements involving primarily the point. The two actions - and the effect they produce on the corpse - are quite distinct, and any comparison between what happened to Tabram and Nichols need to bear these qualitative differences in mind.

Also, the majority of Tabram's abdominal wounds were undoubtedly in the upper abdomen - indeed, some newspaper accounts of the inquest have Killeen as stating that only one wound (the 3" one) was "in the lower body". This is, in any case apparent given the multiple punctures sustained by the liver, spleen and stomach - which, added to the stab-wounds to the chest and neck, seem to vouch for her killer demonstrating a distinctly "top-heavy" bias on this occasion.

[Jon Guy]

At least in Nichols' case we know that the killer was "busy" in her lower abdominal area, Jon, for he cut open the abdomen such that the intestines were able to poke out. Tabram's killer, in contrast (or if he was Jack, on this occasion) seems to have been far more focused on the upper half of the victim's body.

I`d have to disagree here, Sam.

As given by Swanson :
"she had been stabbed on body, neck and private parts"

Metropolitan Police records :
"nature and description of wounds as given in police surgeons report :
twenty wounds on breast, stomach and abdomen."

My own notes show Martha was stabbed six times in the stomach,five in liver,two in spleen and once in her lower portion.
In comparison, how many slashes were there on Nichols abdomen ? Possibly around ten, not far off the number of stabs in Tabrams abdomen.

Obviously, the number of strikes to Tabram`s upper body could well have something to do with killing his victim, as there was no throat cut.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sam,
That happens to be my thread'What a silly billy I,am.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sam,
Sorry mate, when excited I tend to stick my oar in all kind of places,[ does that sound decent?] anyway I always do my best to encourage conversation, albeit ... non intentionally the wrong threads .. just call me eccentric.
Best wishes as always,
Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Richard/All,

There's a recent thread which seems to me a more appropriate heading under which to discuss the interesting subject you've raised, which may be found here: "How Jack struck".

This here thread is purely Tabram-country

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sam/Fisherman,
I can accept both your reservations in going along with my suggestions, the main concern being the noise factor..
In the case of Tabram, we should remember that Whitechapel was yet to be come aware of a maniac at large, so in the case of Martha, it would simply be a case of wanting to avoid the intentions of a unwanted liason, hense entering George yard as a way of safety.
In Nichols case we are all aware of reports of a disburbance in Brady street . and a further report of panic involving a woman in Bucks row.
Chapmans demise is hardly soundproof, ie according to Albert C, and say if for exsample she was suddenly interupted in the yard by a strange man , whilst composing herself after a sexual encounter with Longs deerstalker gent, then a sound of 'No' would be a accepted sound.
Stride is clearly a verbal attack, and if so after the two witnesses departed the scene, she would have proberly attempted to escape her menace by entering the yard towards the club lights.
Just because Eddowes appeared to be having a intimate conversation with a man at the entrance to Church passage, complete with hand on chest, it does not mean that the hand on chest was not a gesture which implied 'Back Off, and we still have to explain the bruise on her left hand between her thumb and forefinger[ of recent origin]which seems to indicate rough handling.
We should also take into account that these women were initially not contemplating that this person was a mass murderer, that is until too late.
And lets not forget that a strong grip from a hand over a mouth would suffice in limiting too much verbal activity.
I have many endings to Kellys murder, and a few suspects, however although taking 'Oral history' as a starter, I would suggest that Mjk was killed by the man seen by Mrs Cox, but it was by the man that she described to her neice,ie. the man seen to be pulling Mjk to her room, and poor Mary Kelly putting it down to, as a frustrated client, and a easy pay day, was unaware of the minutes that would follow.
An alternative, and original view to our much debated subject.
Best Regards,
Richard.