39 stabs - a frenzy?

[DVV]

I just realized it should be a wideawake hat off for Harry.
And that Sam is 40,5 years old.

[Fisherman]

Harry!

I would also like to join the well-wishers, just as I would like to join those who recognize the merit of your latest post. Just like you say, there are a number of things that may lead the thoughts to somebody who was not totally out of control.
Now see to it that such a thing does not apply to your own good self on this day - go blur that screen!

The best of wishes!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Sam, I think Harry's screen will be blurry because of champagne.
Of course, you are allowed to drink even if it's not your birthday!
I'll immediatly open a red Cahors and drink it à la santé de Harry.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Harry - I'm half your age and the screen is blurry, so I'll pitch my hat in the ring as well. Congratulations

[DVV]

I wholeheartedly wish you a happy birthday too Harry,
and add that your post is excellent.
Well spotted and worth discussing!
As Stewart said, hat off.

[Stewart P Evans]

Happy Birthday

Now I did say only some of the wounds may have been mere punctures,that is because Kileen alluded to them as punctures,and my understanding of a puncture wound is something akin to a snake bite,not much more than the breaking of the skin,and of course I,and Kileen,could be right,some of them may have been.I also am aware of the deepness of some of the wounds,so Sam it might have been a case of skewing a steak instead of pricking a sausage.It still doesn't denote frenzy.That there appears to be three distinct areas of attact might also point to a controlled individual,and the lack of more extensive slashing a realisation that the weapon to hand was not suitable for such.
I am posting early and without much thinking because today is my eighty first(81) birthday,and later on the screen may become a little blurry.
Regards all.

Harry, my hat is off to you. Happy birthday.

[harry]

Now I did say only some of the wounds may have been mere punctures,that is because Kileen alluded to them as punctures,and my understanding of a puncture wound is something akin to a snake bite,not much more than the breaking of the skin,and of course I,and Kileen,could be right,some of them may have been.I also am aware of the deepness of some of the wounds,so Sam it might have been a case of skewing a steak instead of pricking a sausage.It still doesn't denote frenzy.That there appears to be three distinct areas of attact might also point to a controlled individual,and the lack of more extensive slashing a realisation that the weapon to hand was not suitable for such.
I am posting early and without much thinking because today is my eighty first(81) birthday,and later on the screen may become a little blurry.
Regards all.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"With all due respect to my friend Fisherman, Martha Tabrams murder was exactly as it has been portrayed, a stabbing frenzy.....if nothing else that is shown by the number of wounds that missed organs or vessels, not by the ones that hit them."

Thanks for that respect, Michael! Let me ask you a pertinent question: them stabs that did not hit organs or vessels - exactly where did they end up? And how many were they?

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"Were there actually two weapons? Seems very unlikely to me"

Of course there were two blades, David! Killeen is extremely adamant about it. He tells us that all the wounds but one could have been inflicted by the same blade.
And how does that come out if you read it the other way around? It comes out: "One of the wounds could NOT have been inflicted by the same blade as the others".
Not would not, David: could not. Not improbable: impossible.

But do not let it annoy you. When things like these come along, we have every reason to rejoyce, recognizing that fate has handed a big, fat gift to us, urging us on not to settle for the simple explanation floating on the surface, but to dive in and pick up what has been lying on the bottom for 120 years.

Ask yourself why Kileen spoke of a pen-knife as a possible choice of weapon in the Tabram case, David - what may have led him to state that? One thing, and one thing only - blade width. There is no other way that he may possibly have reached that conclusion. So we KNOW, without the shade of a doubt, that the blade was a narrow one.
And the blade that Killen "saw" was not sturdy enough to pierce the chestbone.

Moreover, if the hole through the sternum had tallied with the other holes dealt to Tabrams body, the only way that Killeen could have found substantiation for his belief that the "38-wound-blade" could not have pierced the chestbone, would have been to draw the conclusion that the equally narrow blade that went through the sternum was made of sturdier material.
That would be a very strange thing to assert, would it not?

Therefore, just as we can be dead certain that the 38 wounds gave away that a narrow blade had been used, we can be equally sure that the hole through the sternum was a significantly larger one, explaining why Killeen spoke of a sturdier, stronger weapon being used. He performed the post-mortem, David, and he could follow the traces left by the blades. He knew, and he must have been as baffled as you are, since logic dictates that a frenzied, enraged killer would not change weapons.
It was two blades, alright.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"Clearly that is a very extreme - and might I add - very unique example, that hardly can be applied here."

...and the Ripper killings were NOT extreme?? Thus no good comparison? Come on, Glenn, we´ve been over this ground before, and you have always stayed by your wiew that Tabram´s murder could not have been anything but a frenzy. That wiew has to go, simple as that.
Of course this new case is an odd one, just like you say. Then again, one can always raise the question just how odd sadism is. Been around as long as man has, if you ask me, and would have had it´s disciples in London 1888 too.

"I am looking forward to see your article becuse they are always well written, but your ideas are often quite far-fetched, with possibilities stretched to the limit beyond the unbelievable."

I much prefer that to stretching things to the limit beyond the believable!

"The Tabram murder was most likely what it appears to be: namely a frenzied attack on a prostitute made by a client, probably because the deal gone wrong or she made fun of him."

...and if you have read my posts, you will know that I concur with this. It was just what you think it was, if I am correct - and a little bit more.

"There is no controlled element in the Tabram murder"

No? A change of blade, and a stab through the heart - no controlled element, Glenn? Think again...

"There is nothing strange or complicated about it"

One more time, Glenn: TWO weapons were used. That is complicated enough for me!

"and if you then further add the soldier loitering around at the corner of Wentworth Street- Georgew Yrad around the approximate time of the murder, saying that his mate had "gone off with a girl", it all adds up perfectly."

So it would seem, Glenn. No objections.

" Under such conditions there is no need to use very extreme unique examples of crimes that doesn't even fit the Tabram murder in other regards."

Under such conditions, no. But as far as I can see we have not actually nailed the soldier to the site, have we? We are dealing with an unidentified killer of whose urges and mental disposition we can make no substantiated guess at all. Therefore the comparison should not be dismissed - it should be regarded as very vital evidence that other things than a frenzy may have lain behind Marthas demise. Let´s not get ahead of ourselves here!

"There is no need to attribute the murder to a serial killer and certainly not Jack the Ripper."

There is no absolute such need, no. But there is a need to recognize that deeds like these may be the results of planned sadism, just as there is a need to pay attention to the fact that frenzied killers do not change weapons along the way - if you can employ statistics and kick odd behaviour out of the window, then so can I, Glenn! - and a need never to forget that she had a cut to her lower body, just like ALL other universally recognized Ripper victims.

I hope, Glenn, that when you have read my article, you may say "Blimey! Could it have been that simple?" I am not offering anything strange at all as a solution; I am offering the Ripper acting along the same convictions that he always did.

Sam writes:

"It's reasonably safe to assume that the puncture wounds were reasonably deep, otherwise their superficiality would surely have been noted."

Spot on, that is; just have a look at the number of inner organs that were pierced, and we can conclude that the blade went deep. Liver, lung, spleen and stomach were pierced, and them organs were all set deep inside quite a voluminous woman.

The best, all!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

One other comment I have is that medical evidence speaks of 39 puncture marks,not stab wounds,so some may have been only a breakage of the skin,and not deep intrusions as one might expect if commited in a frenzy.

Whoever did it, did so in the process of killing a woman, Harry - not pricking a sausage. It's reasonably safe to assume that the puncture wounds were reasonably deep, otherwise their superficiality would surely have been noted.

[harry]

The one thing that persuades me against a client murderer,is that Tabram was found on the second floor(or first if the bottom one is counted as ground).From the apearance of the place,it would appear there were many other more suitable places in and around the building,for a short time client/customer liaison.I have a notion that she went where she was found to sleep.One other comment I have is that medical evidence speaks of 39 puncture marks,not stab wounds,so some may have been only a breakage of the skin,and not deep intrusions as one might expect if commited in a frenzy.
So allowing for the inclusion of the soldiers into the scene,it could well have been that she went to where she was found,followed by her killer after the soldiers departed.

[DVV]

She has one wound that was described as being like that of a bayonet, after being last seen by Poll heading off with a soldier in tow.

Hi Michael,
I really can't buy this old "bayonet" story.
Even if so, it has nothing to do with the soldiers that drank with PP and Martha. Who said they carried bayonets in their pockets?
Dr K vaguely suggested: a dagger or a bayonet.
Were there actually two weapons? Seems very unlikely to me, and a simple knife can do a lot. (Indeed, that's the only sensible point I've ever found in Cornwell!)

Amitiés,
David

It wouldnt surprise me a bit if the day we all find out who the killer was........like its inevitable... ...that he began working because he was inspired to action by the coverage of Marthas death. He one upped that killer, then again with Annie....and if we had a proper 3rd victim, or re-numbered Kate as 3, we would see a steady, increasingly grotesque, display.

All the best.

With all due respect to my friend Fisherman, Martha Tabrams murder was exactly as it has been portrayed, a stabbing frenzy.....if nothing else that is shown by the number of wounds that missed organs or vessels, not by the ones that hit them.

She has one wound that was described as being like that of a bayonet, after being last seen by Poll heading off with a soldier in tow.

Reading the reporting of her murder you would think she is the most savagely attacked woman in years.....well, not based on the next 3 months she aint. Someone, or a few someones kick horror up a notch from Martha's murder within the month. A new level of violence and savagery....so much so that many authorities discarded Martha as a potential Ripper killer quite soon after Annies death, like we have done with Emma, now knowing she did speak to someone before she died, and that she was accosted by 3 men in a robbery attempt.

Martha's was a cruel, mean murder, but the coming ones are cold and calculating.Why? A Different animal altogether.

ps.....there is only one victim on Jacks roster that could be interpreted as him fufilling fantasies first, with killing and cutting as secondary goals, and thats Mary Janes. There is no other Canonical that shows he was emotionally attached to what he was doing to that extent. He did more superflous things, spent more time...and thus, made a commmitment to the Kelly killing he never made with others.

The only way you can say Polly, Annie and Kate were a result of a frenzied killer is by the speed....and the goals he achieved within that short time frame show his "detachment" to the acts. Fast and accurate as possible, then get the hell away. Maybe he covets later, or basks in his acts like the one on Fish's story, but he doesnt dwell while working.

Best regards all.