Stabbed in the throat...

[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

[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

[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.

[DVV]

Hi Ben,
even adding Wilson and Millwood to the frame, you can say "relative", since these "coups d'essai" weren't "coups de maître" at all.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

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

Not sure, Sam.
Many people, unfortunately, are able to cut throats or stab someone to death.
Extracting intestines with your own hands is really another matter...

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"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."

Killeen tells us, Sam, that she lived throughot the puncturing of her body, a conclusion he would probably have reached by looking at to what extent the wounds had bled.
That means, if I am correct, that the piercing of the heart would not have come prior to the other stabbing, but after it, very probably as the last wound inflicted.

All the best, Sam!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fisherman,
Killeen said that the wound in the heart was "sufficient to cause death", but when you look at the other wounds (5 stabs in the liver, 6 in the stomach, 2 in the spleen...), unless Martha was Rasputin's sister, she may well have died, or be dying, before or without the stab in her heart.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Dave,

Many people, unfortunately, are able to cut throats or stab someone to death.

I'm not questioning the ability, I'm questioning the propensity or "desire" to do it. More specifically, what the murderer may have felt while he was killing. Stabbing with a knife is a rather different sensation to cutting with one.

Extracting intestines with your own hands is really another matter...

True enough.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

That means, if I am correct, that the piercing of the heart would not have come prior to the other stabbing, but after it, very probably as the last wound inflicted.

Killeen alludes to the wound in the heart being sufficient to cause death - which may have been an elliptical means of saying that the wound to the heart were what put paid to her in the first instance, the others coming later. That Killeen opined that all the wounds were inflicted before death doesn't mean that they were inflicted before the fatal wound to the heart, by the way - Tabram would have lived for a few minutes, even with a pierced heart.

Whatever - 38 wounds to the upper half of the body, and only one in the "lower body" (or "private part") says it all in terms of where the killer's effort was focused on this occasion, irrespective of whether the heart was stabbed first or last.

[FrankO]

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.

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

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"Killeen alludes to the wound in the heart being sufficient to cause death - which may have been an elliptical means of saying that the wound to the heart were what put paid to her in the first instance, the others coming later."

Everything - well, almost everything - can be argued here, Sam. This is one of those things.
To me, the stab through the sternum and heart WAS the coup de grace, for reasons that I will not disclose yet. It is the only way it fits in, the way I see things. I´m afraid I am a lousy discussion partner, having a set mind that I do not feel at ease to use!

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank!

Sounds good to me on the whole - but why did he change weapons? What is your wiew on that?

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Hi Fisherman!

My view, as a layman in the field of medical forensics, is that he didn't change weapons. It seems far more simple and feasible that he needed to wriggle the knife out of the breastbone, causing the wound to appear as if inflicted by a different type of knife.

The best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Don´t think so, Frank. That has been suggested at a number of occasions, but don´t loose sight of the fact that Killeen would have been trying to fit all the wounds in with one blade, since that would have been the logical thing to do. He could not, though. He spoke of a pen-knife, and pen-knives have smallish, thin blades, whereas the blade that pierced the sternum made him think of bayonets! If we were dealing with a pen-knife, it would take some wiggling in that breast-bone to make the hole look bayonet-sized!
No, my friend, I do believe that Killeen was extremely sure of what he suggested, just as I feel sure that it took a mighty difference inbetween the two blades to force Killeen to be bold enough to state his wiew.

All the best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Killeen spoke of a pen-knife, and pen-knives have smallish, thin blades, whereas the blade that pierced the sternum made him think of bayonets!

He only mentions a dagger, actually, Fish. I can't recall where the "bayonet" idea came from, but it appears not to have come from Killeen.