39 stabs - a frenzy?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn writes:

"I have always felt that two offenders with different weapons is a more credible solution than one offender switching weapon. And again, this would also fit nicely with two soliders being the perpetrators."

What you say makes good sense, Glenn. But wouldn´t you say that IF it was just the one offender, the more we move away from a scenario with an enraged, frenzied killer and into the realms of more controlled, sadistic killers, the greater the chance that the perpetrator changed weapons somewhere along the way - just for jolly?

A man who is overcome by fury would be less credible to do that swop, would he not?

The problems I have always had with the idea of two soldiers stabbing away, is that I would have preferred to have the stabs distributed in another manner than 38-1, just as I find it very strange that it was a silent deed. Two soldiers, at least one of them enraged for some reason and a street-wise prostitute - that does not make up the traditional silent scenario, does it?
Of course it can be reasoned that the second soldier arrived a bit later, and, realizing what his chum had been up to, he delt the coupe de grace to ensure Tabrams death. It is a viable scenario - but it does not explain the cut to the lower body.

The best!
Fisherman

Well, Fisherman,

The only reason that would to some degree make sense to me for one offender switching weapons, is that the initial knife for some reason became useless or broke. The problem is that there wasn't any signs of a broken knife blade on the scene or on the victim and I hadrly think the perpatrator would be calculating enough to pick up the broken piece of blade and take it with him.
So that is one reason for why I don't really subscribe to one offender theory (if Killeen was right about two weapons), namely that it doesn't make any real sense. In the scenario with two offenders, however, the change of weapon would make a bit more sense na dwould invite to a number of explanations, although I fear we will never get a full grisp of what really happened.

As for the murder being silent, I have never seen that as a problem. I have never understood why people assume that even a frenzied murder must be attached to rows or noise. The annals of crime are littered with beastly murder cases where no scuffle or noise has been detected and honestly I can't see why two soldiers would make more noise than one.
And how do we know that the murder really was silent? Surely there is a possibility - as so often in violenmt crimes - that people might have heard more than they did but simply didn't want to get involved or that they simply was used to some noise or scuffle in the stairway since it might have been used by prostitutes on several occasions and paid no attention to it.

All the best

[Fisherman]

All very sound reasoning, Glenn! I will only add that much as we can´t KNOW that it was a silent deed, we do have strong indications of it, for example the Hewitt testimony. Of course it could be untrue, as has been suggested by Tom Wescott, but there were more people than the Hewitts living in that house. Nobody testified of any noise whatsoever from the landing, and therefore I think that is what we need to work from.

The best,
Fisherman

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Well, to suggest that multible stabbing with 39 wounds might be an example control and design and not a result of frenzy is of course ridiculous. So that can't be helped.
As for the rest of your post, I won't comment on its sheer lack of intelligence.

Ripperology in all its brilliancy.

First: Classifying as 'ridiculous' what goes against things it has by its own standards stated as "must-be-so-and-will-be-so" (probably by lack of understanding).
In the post here above as example: the 39 stabs must be a 'frenzy sign'.

Second: Not advancing any sort of argumentation in support of any of the 'must-be-accepted' dogmas, aside from the at best very vague and arguable psycho-behavioural patterns which could be found around the serial killer modelization (but what couldn't one find around it except maybe little green men anyway ?).
In the post here above as example: 39 stabs is a result of frenzy ( what about 38 or 28 ? Would it be different with 41 or 53? At what number frenzy begins ?)

Third: Using the only argumentation available to it to counter any hint at the weakness of the accepted dogmas: 'It can't be helped'.

Fourth: Switching very rapidly from arguing the debated points ('debated' being a kind of ironical euphemism) to the insulting of the persons and believing that by the violence of the Verb they come out as winners of the contention.

But on this last point we may use a bit of condescency.
Their frustration must be of such gigantic proportion that their sufferance might find alleviation in such a self-destructive behaviour.

As for the point in question and if we are to try to act as diligent investigators with the knowledge we have about the crime scene in George Yard (contrary to the classical 'Ripperological truth', this knowledge being quite extensive) we should have been able already a long time ago (had ever the will been there) to come and grasp the nettle as far as what concerns the finding on the body on that location.

This would have helped to open other doors than the frenzy one which, useless to say it, it is not helped by any of the circumstancial evidences that testimonies and time have had the graciuosness to bring to us and that we know about the episode of George Yard.

Of course the attitude should have been a little different from the one Mr Andersson shows in his post.

To be a little more specific and to remain in the context of the 39-stabs-are-the-result-of-frenzy-and-no-other-understand-sucka? so valliantly proposed by the same Mr Andersson, following the path of the seemingly ever more tired classical Ripperology, it would have been extremely useful to opt for a much more cautious approach of the reason of the presence of the woman Tabram on the spot where her martyrized body was found.

Search which usefulness is supported by the lack of any answer on this point brought up by Scotland yard at the time ( Swanson's belief is only his belief) and underlined by the Press (which at this moment of the investigation could enjoy any degree of collaboration with the police).

Because we can't say for sure that she went there for sex.
Which scenario would let us open, I admit, the possibility of a crime reconstruction based frenzy (even by making the effort of forgetting all circumstancial evidence cited above).

Because we can't be sure that she went there to sleep.
Which thing could turn a bit more realistic the consideration of frenzy in the murder (obviously making the same effort here above).

And because we can't be sure of the two reasons here above mentioned, we must consider a third one, the only one still possible after eliminating the previous two.

What about if she went there not for sex, not to sleep but just...to die ?
Because of one thing we are sure: there she died.

And this would destroy any possibility of frenzy, because there could be no frenzy with any degree of premeditation.

Whatever our propension to accept such a bewildering solution we must nevertheless agree that as circumstancial evidence points to no frenzy...

Of course this would bring a lot of new questions (totally new questions I mean, never asked) which could point to other directions for the case.

Directions that would probably require some kind of intelligence that, as Mr Andersson courageously more than hint, we are not provided with.

[harry]

Thank you all for your kind comments and birthday wishes,and it's been a pleasure joining in on these boards these past many years.May there be more.
The three groupings of the wounds were as reported by Killeen.The throat,the abdomen and breast areas.Twenty one of the wounds were reported as piercing internal organs.Of the others one was a gash of approximately 3inches long by one inch deep.
Far from being frenzied,I consider there was the same consideration and intention as shown in later killings.First the attack to the throat area,to silence and kill.Then the attention to the breast area,and lastly the mutilation of the genital area.What was lacking in the Tabram killing was a suitable weapon,hence the seemingly overkill in evidence.The weapon simply wasn't suitable for the purpose in mind.To compensate it was a case of stab instead of cut.It was Jack's first mistake,but he learned.
There is a kind of pocket knife that has what is called a marlin spike attachment.Like the blade it folds back towards the handle.When extended it could resemble a bayonet appearance and cause a similar but lesser wound.I always refered to these knives as Clasp or Jack knife,a superior and sturdier model than the pen knife.
Regards all.

[Supe]

Fisherman,

Of course it can be reasoned that the second soldier arrived a bit later, and, realizing what his chum had been up to, he delt the coupe de grace to ensure Tabrams death. It is a viable scenario - but it does not explain the cut to the lower body.

I don't pretend to hold any patent on that scenario--au contraire--but since I proposed just such a scenario recently in an article ("Does She or Doesn't She" Ripperologist 94 August 2008) that I know you read, you might have mentioned that fact. And I did account for the stab to the lower body.

Don.

[Fisherman]

Hi Don!

What I have managed to pick up on the Ripper is something I owe thanks to numerous people for. The reason that we are allowed such length of sight is that we are standing of the shoulders of our predecessors (and yes, I lent that one too, but from whom I could not say).

The scenario with soldier number two arriving and stretching out a helping hand to his friend by finishing Tabram off is one example of this. I have seen that suggested at numerous occasions for quite some time now, and thus it never occurred to me that I should have mentioned your name when offering it.
If I have soiled your shoulders, forgive me - I never meant to. I have the greatest respect of your work and knowledge, just as I admire that easy flowing pen that rests in your hand.

All the best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Sorry I missed your post Harry, but belatedly all the best on your 81st birthday. Youve been a great poster, and I hope you will continue to be for many years to come. And thanks for addressing the number of non-organ stabs for me, by the way.

I think your comment about a Jack Knife is a good one, a sturdy folding knife, not a pen knife. I think it would be much easier to carry around without needing a sheath, or just tucked into the wearers belt. A sheath means he has to throw that side of his coat back to take it out and put it back, and if he crouched wrong with a knife tucked into his belt......well, that could be an issue.

Best regards.

[harry]

Just one,perhaps final question on the frenzy style wounds.Assuming Killeen to have been correct on the kind of weapon,and the method of use that of stabbing,would I be correct in thinking that the Knife? would be held in a fist like grip.That the little finger and lower palm be toward the body on impact,that a frenzied stab would be delivered with suffificient force to penetrate the blade fully,and the fist make solid impact with the flesh?Would that not cause bruising?.Thirty Eight frenzied violent stabs,yet there is no mention of bruising at all,only of puncturing.Seems strange.

Perrymason,
Thank you for for your kind remarks.
Regards.

[DVV]

Hi all,
Just to mention that Swanson had already corrected Killeen's conclusions in september 1888:
"Dr Keeling (sic) of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found 39 wounds on body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."
No bayonet, one weapon.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hi all,
Just to mention that Swanson had already corrected Killeen's conclusions in september 1888:
"Dr Keeling (sic) of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found 39 wounds on body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."
No bayonet, one weapon.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Even if we were to swallow this assertion of yours, David, instead of just recognizing that it had dawned on Swanson that the deed was perpetraded by knife: what possible evidence are you suggesting led Swanson to his, ehrm...conclusion?
A look at the East London Observer of August the 11:th is refreshing. It has Killeen stating: ”I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument, because there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger”
That effectively shows that the shape of the wound through the sternum ruled out the possibility that it was made by the same instrument as were the other wounds.

If Swanson really held the belief that you are implying, then he would have fallen into the self same trap as you are caught in, David: ”It is improbable that two blades were used, ergo it was only one blade.”

But the Tabram murder WAS an improbability in this respect, I believe. I also think that there are more pertinent questions to answer, as for example why he stabbed 38 times and cut once.

Harry, your point on the bruising is a valid one. But I don´t think we can be sure that he held the knife in his fist the way you suggest. In cases of frenzy, it is the most common way to hold the knife, but those who are used to fighting with knives generally prefer the kind of grip where the blade protrudes fron the thumb side of the hand, since it gives better control and superior reach.
I don´t know if we can deduct that bruising around the entrance holes of the stabs would have been reported about. But if you are thinking along the lines of distinguishing between stab wounds and ”punctured wounds”, it must be pointed out that Killeen actually described ALL the wounds as punctured wounds. In the East London Observer he speaks of ”39 punctured wounds”, and that simply means that the wounds were caused by puncturing the skin as opposed to other types of wounds inflicted by other types of weapons.

On the point of Don Soudens suggestion that the cut on Tabrams body was the result of the blade hitting the pubic bone and skidding to the side, I think that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out.
But I also think that the human body offers many a bone to strike where a similar effect could have been reached; ribs, chest bone, hip bones, collarbones etcetera, etcetera.
As Tabram lay on the ground, she offered about one thousand square inches of target area. That skidding stab could have sat anywhere on them square inches. But no, it just so happens it ends up on the lower part of her body, meaning that we cannot rule Jack out.
And for some reason, if this is what happened, Killeen did either not realize that a skid was the explanation, or he simply chose to ommitt telling us what had happened. Those are the only two options open to us!

So either we are desperately unlucky – or we are looking at something where there is no need to look for any random explanations.

Personally, I do not hesitate to go for the second choice.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Even if we were to swallow this assertion of yours, David, instead of just recognizing that it had dawned on Swanson that the deed was perpetraded by knife: what possible evidence are you suggesting led Swanson to his, ehrm...conclusion?
A look at the East London Observer of August the 11:th is refreshing. It has Killeen stating: ”I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument, because there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger”
That effectively shows that the shape of the wound through the sternum ruled out the possibility that it was made by the same instrument as were the other wounds.

If Swanson really held the belief that you are implying, then he would have fallen into the self same trap as you are caught in, David: ”It is improbable that two blades were used, ergo it was only one blade.”

But the Tabram murder WAS an improbability in this respect, I believe. I also think that there are more pertinent questions to answer, as for example why he stabbed 38 times and cut once.

Harry, your point on the bruising is a valid one. But I don´t think we can be sure that he held the knife in his fist the way you suggest. In cases of frenzy, it is the most common way to hold the knife, but those who are used to fighting with knives generally prefer the kind of grip where the blade protrudes fron the thumb side of the hand, since it gives better control and superior reach.
I don´t know if we can deduct that bruising around the entrance holes of the stabs would have been reported about. But if you are thinking along the lines of distinguishing between stab wounds and ”punctured wounds”, it must be pointed out that Killeen actually described ALL the wounds as punctured wounds. In the East London Observer he speaks of ”39 punctured wounds”, and that simply means that the wounds were caused by puncturing the skin as opposed to other types of wounds inflicted by other types of weapons.

On the point of Don Soudens suggestion that the cut on Tabrams body was the result of the blade hitting the pubic bone and skidding to the side, I think that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out.
But I also think that the human body offers many a bone to strike where a similar effect could have been reached; ribs, chest bone, hip bones, collarbones etcetera, etcetera.
As Tabram lay on the ground, she offered about one thousand square inches of target area. That skidding stab could have sat anywhere on them square inches. But no, it just so happens it ends up on the lower part of her body, meaning that we cannot rule Jack out.
And for some reason, if this is what happened, Killeen did either not realize that a skid was the explanation, or he simply chose to ommitt telling us what had happened. Those are the only two options open to us!

So either we are desperately unlucky – or we are looking at something where there is no need to look for any random explanations.

Personally, I do not hesitate to go for the second choice.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish,
my answer would be very simple: I think very unlikely that there were two weapons used, let alone two killers.
And I really don't see why this opinion should be taken as a crazy or stupid one, Fish.
We all very well know that doctors can be mistaken. Phillips himself had a long experience (more than Killeen may be), but he made several mistakes and somehow - to say the least - misled the police.
You have, by the way, already noted that Killeen was quite far from flat. So why should I flatly accept these two weapons, knowing what we know about forensic ?
This said, I repeat that I will wait for your article. I'm sure it makes sense, but only if two different weapons were used.
Tell me, Fish: are you sure that all doctors at the time would have agreed with Killeen?
We know that different doctors = different opinions, in 1888.

Amitiés, and the best as always,
David

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Hi Fish,
my answer would be very simple: I think very unlikely that there were two weapons used

Very unlikely ?
You classify as 'very unlikely' the conclusion of the 'médecin légiste' ?

You must be joking.

'Unlikely' would already be very hazardous.

Come on...this is not a way to treat the case. It makes you wonder the usefulness of any discussion. One can't travel so deep in the jungle.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

We all very well know that doctors can be mistaken. Phillips himself had a long experience (more than Killeen may be), but he made several mistakes and somehow - to say the least - misled the police.

Philips making several mistakes ????????
Misleading the police ?????????
Ahem....

I think is better I go.