Stabbed in the throat...

[Fisherman]

Okay, Sam. Then maybe it was all that soldier stuff floating about that surfaced the bayonet idea.
In the end, it does not mean very much - Killeen was decided on the point of two weapons, and that would have been what was used.

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Well then, Fish, maybe the murderer carried a larger, second dagger-like knife, that he pulled out only to finish it off and pierce the heart. I don't know, but it seems not all that likely to me, although a bit more likely perhaps than the idea of a second man with a bigger knife, who stood by and only stabbed once, or gave it to his chum for one last stab.

The best, Fisherman!
Frank

[Mitch Rowe]

Two Men.. A large Woman. And a small staircase landing dont add up to a quiet time at the Library unless they were all reading books wich we know they werent.

It seems more likely to me that Martha was killed by one Man.
It dont seem like Martha was there for sex. More like she was sleeping there but I dont know.

The best explanation I can come up with for two knives one Man is that Martha was stabbed in the heart first and the killer left the knife in and used another knife to make the other wounds. Maybe he strangled her first?

If you believe Liz is a victim of JTR then there may be some indication JTR carried two knives. If this guy is a knife expert then he will have collected many knives. He might carry knives for specific purpose.

[Fisherman]

Frank writes:
"Well then, Fish, maybe the murderer carried a larger, second dagger-like knife, that he pulled out only to finish it off and pierce the heart. I don't know, but it seems not all that likely to me, although a bit more likely perhaps than the idea of a second man with a bigger knife, who stood by and only stabbed once, or gave it to his chum for one last stab."

...and Mitch writes:
"Two Men.. A large Woman. And a small staircase landing dont add up to a quiet time at the Library unless they were all reading books wich we know they werent."

So we are faced with a mystery - but that mystery can be solved, I believe. And not only that - it can also give us the key to understanding why the Ripper followed the pattern he did.
November - that´s when my article is published, if all goes the way it should. Then it´s your turn to have a stab at me!

The best, guys!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

So we are faced with a mystery - but that mystery can be solved, I believe. And not only that - it can also give us the key to understanding why the Ripper followed the pattern he did.

Considering that there's so little information, those are bold statements, my Swedish friend. So, be prepared for that stab! More seriously, I look forward to reading your article!

The best!
Frank

[Fisherman]

I am preparing myself for that stab, Frank. I realize that I am being bold here. Thing, is, every once in a while you stumble onto something that gives you a pause, and you say to yourself: Of course! That is how it happened! It must be!
I am not such a big fool that I don´t realize that a number of posters will say "Nope, that is NOT how it happened", and I am not stupid enough not to understand that even solutions that may seem watertight can be questioned with every right in the world.
But I have a chain of events that makes perfect sense to my own mind, that explains the built-in oddities in the Tabram case and shows us what reasoning lay beyond the modus operandi of the Ripper deeds, plus it shows why what has always been considered a collosal leap between the Tabram killing and the Nichols ditto is really no leap at all, but a small and logical progression. And thus I am quite prepared to stick my chin out.
And I can celebrate all the way up to November, at least, can´t I? I think it was the Norwegian author Aksel Sandemose who once said: "I always take my pleasures out in advance - if I didn´t, I wouldn´t have any..."

All the best, Frank!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi David,

This sounds like the way I see things regarding Tabram, but I'm not completely sure. Therefore, I'm going to tell you what I think, so you can say if this corresponds with what you said.

I think that in Tabram’s case, the Ripper may not have gone out with murder on his mind. He may just have wanted to go out, like many nights before, have a couple of pints, maybe end up in an alley doing a knee-trembler. But this time, he may have found himself unexpectedly triggered by Tabram, who may have said the wrong thing, which enfuriated him so that he killed her on impulse. The time bomb finally exploded. And because he was mad as hell, ill prepared and inexperienced, he was perhaps able to only act out parts of his fantasies as a sort of after-thought and split before he could be caught. This, by far, would be the most feasible scenario I see for Tabram as a Ripper victim.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,
I'd say I hardly understand the alledged and almost exclusive dimension of fury, frenziness, etc, when it comes to Tabram murder. There is, indeed, some rage, but you can also find that in the way later victims were slaughtered (to the spine) and mutilated.
I think more relevant to take into account the extraordinary silence of the deed, the swollen face of the victim, her age and profile, the location, the fact that the murder occured on a bank holiday.
So, I would agree with you and see Martha as a Ripper victim, but the killer doesn't seem to me that much unprepared: a silent murder, despite its violence, and no clues left.

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

- 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.

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 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.

Hello Sam

But there is only so much you can do to a body by stabbing alone.
Even for the non-homicidal, it is obvious that slashing open`s up a whole new ball game.

[Fisherman]

David writes:
"I'd say I hardly understand the alledged and almost exclusive dimension of fury, frenziness, etc, when it comes to Tabram murder. There is, indeed, some rage, but you can also find that in the way later victims were slaughtered (to the spine) and mutilated."

The difference referred to inbetween Tabrams death and the canonical ones (Stride excepted) lies in the amount of control used by the killer. In the Tabram deed it can be reasoned that the flurry of stabs indicate that the killer was very much out of control, and was happy to hit whatever he could hit.

"I would agree with you and see Martha as a Ripper victim, but the killer doesn't seem to me that much unprepared: a silent murder, despite its violence, and no clues left."

I think, David, that it was Jack that put an end to Tabram´s life. And I think that he was utterly and totally unprepared to do so.

...and Jon Guy writes:

"Even for the non-homicidal, it is obvious that slashing open`s up a whole new ball game."

Yep, Jon. And therein lies the rub!

All the best, David, Jon!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish,
I've read too many times the words "frenziness" or "fury", applied to Tabram's murderer, while the relevant silence and efficiency of the murder is often forgotten.

In fact, I wasn't there, and can't say whether the killer was "out of control" or not. To me, all JtR's murders reveal some kind of fury, anger, etc, variously expressed... But that is nothing but a truism.
Of course, we're free to deduce "fury" from dozens of wounds...But we have to point out that, at the same time, nobody heard anything (and there were people living just some yards away from the spot), the killer seems to have strangled or suffocated his victim first, and he left no clue behind him.
Not bad, for an "out of control" beginner!
To some extent (and to some extent only), the silence contradicts the "mad furious killer" theory, and this element is not to be neglected.

Amitiés, mon cher Fish,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

But there is only so much you can do to a body by stabbing alone.

True - but one of the "reasons" for doing so may have something to do with the physical sensation of pummelling into a body repeatedly. A sensation radically different from cutting into the skin and dragging a knife through the flesh. There have been many examples of "frenzied stabbers" throughout history, but far fewer serial eviscerators.

Even for the non-homicidal, it is obvious that slashing open`s up a whole new ball game.

It depends whether you slice open just for the hell of it, or slice open with the deliberate intent of possessing the inner organs. Whilst the latter may only have occurred to Jack on the spur of the moment, I'm not so sure that he didn't have the end-game of evisceration and organ-removal in mind from the outset.

[Fisherman]

David writes:
"In fact, I wasn't there, and can't say whether the killer was "out of control" or not."

Well, David, neither was I. And I think that the existing evidence is not enough to reach any certainty in the department.
I have often pressed the point that this slaying does not seem to imply that the killer was totally out of control. The lack of defense wounds, the lack of any report speaking of random stabbing to the flesh or stabs gone wrong - the stabs accounted for seem all to have been directed at vital organs or neatly collected at the throat - it all points away from an uncontrolled killer, just as the silence does so too.
Then again, the effusion of blood on the head may provide a very simple explanation for that silence, just at a possible throttling may do so. And we do not have all stabs accounted for. Moreover, the people in the house were probably sleeping at the time, meaning that we must perhaps accept that some sounds may have occured, without waking anybody up.
...and that brings us right back to the possibility of a more frenzied attack, does it not?

Any which way we look at it, David, I think we are at a loss evidencewise to gain certainty about the mindset and control of the man who stabbed Tabram.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn writes:
"It depends whether you slice open just for the hell of it, or slice open with the deliberate intent of possessing the inner organs."

Not really; as long as we have not the possibility to reach any certainty about why that wound came about, Jon is absolutely right: a slash inbetween 38 stabs DOES open up a whole new ball game.

"I'm not so sure that he didn't have the end-game of evisceration and organ-removal in mind from the outset"

Nor am I. To an extent, larger or smaller, it could of course have been a suppressed wish on his behalf. After that, it is all a question about hens and eggs; did he cut Tabrams belly to open her up, or did he realize the possibilities in front of him only after he had made the cut (if we allow ourselves to speak about a cut here, that is, Sam...!)

I opt for alternative number one here: He cut with an intent to get at Tabram´s inside.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hello Fisherman

Have you had a chance to read Don`s article on Martha in the latest Ripperologist ?

[Fisherman]

Yes, Jon, I have! Just as I have read Jane Coram´s piece on George Yard buildings.
Interesting stuff!

I have been more thorough when reading Jane Corams piece, since it is a bit more vital to my own efforts. There are a number of details that I find challengable in that text, and I really feel that there is not enough in it when she places Tabram deep in the building.

When it comes to Don Soudens piece, like I said I haven´t delved as deeply into it as I have with the Coram text. But, needless to say, it is well written and quite informative, as far as I can judge. Does not reach the same conclusions as I do, however. So one of us will be wrong - at least.

The best, Jon!
Fisherman