overkill

[Ben]

Any connection with JTR and Tabram as a victim is left on baseless ' Theory ' in the case of the possibility of 2 men being present.

Nonsense.

"The connection with JTR and Tabram as a victim" is perfectly plausible even in isolation from any theory involding two men being present.

Tabram was indeed killed in a frenzied rage & this is not the typical approach of JTR killings.

That's only if you exclude Kelly as one of the "JTR killings", which was certainly no less frenzied than Tabram's murder.

Hi again all,

For Shelley, just so you have the correct data you asked for, Mary Kelly had her heart taken. Thats it. Sam is quite right though when he suggests she had them all taken "out", its just in this case, the killer evidently coveted the heart... as its the only organ taken with the killer.

Thanks for the post robhouse, and I see a bit better Frank why you are suggesting this "cut", based on robhouses idea of discretionary information. Citing that it is not mentioned universally was when I dropped any guard I may have had, because when making any point, the tendency can be to innocently... or not, leave out information like that comment,... but robhouse included the statement knowing it challenged his position. I like that kind of start. No offense intended towards your arguments at all Frank, I did misread you slightly before, but all valid arguments and well put.

Im just mentioning this about robhouses post because I think its a great example of how to win friends and influence people with a statement.

Im not so sure I buy into that though....figures, huh?

Annie had part of her vagina taken from the scene, and the press reported that. Its clear even if in subtext that this killer was cutting intimate areas....and in many cases the reporting was very graphic.

Neither Polly, nor Annie, nor Liz appeared "disshevelled" based any onsite opinion, they appeared to have been compliant and laying down when he cuts their throats. No struggle is evident.

With Martha, its clear that there was a fight, and her clothing, if raised at the hemline, could easily be as a by-product of that struggle and not due to a conscious effort made by the killer.

If anything, this murder of Martha's seems to indicate the killer was not controlling himself at all. I believe at least 3 of the Canonicals differ vastly from that type of analysis. In one case he excises an organ with the absolute minimum of cuts....now thats control.

All the best folks.

[Shelley]

There was hardly an organ that she didn't have removed, Shelley.Just because her killer made such an awful mess of her body doesn't mean that he was behaving in a frenzied manner.

Ok Sam, however that maybe, that organs were removed from Kelly's body, but not removed from the scene of the crime as with the other mutilated canocial victims, that was what i meant. With Kelly her face ' was hacked beyond all recognition ' according to Dr Bond & also her arms were mutilated by several jagged wounds, that sparks to me to be in a fit of rage rather than methodical ' ripping open '. Mentioning ' faces ' Eddowes had cuts on the face areas that spark ' anger ' and anger from her killer, the level of anger, i wouldn't say neccessarily that it was attributed to a ' frenzied ' venture. In Tabram's case the only cut she had has been stated on her ' private part ' where that may be exactly i do not know, and to me it looks an accidental ' cut ' the 39/ majority of wounds Tabram recieved were stabbings, that is equivocally a ' frenzied ' attack.

[Sam Flynn]

It is clear that this is the part of the testimony that was omitted in almost all other news accounts of the testimony (including the Times account you posted, also th accounts in the Echo, The Evening News, and the Daily News), and we may infer why... because, the wound was in "the private part", and it was a cut, three inches long.

But it was only one inch deep, though - whether for its entire length, or only in part, isn't mentioned. In other words, Rob, it barely seems to have penetrated the layers of the skin; and - let's face it - a single cut three inches in length doesn't begin to compare with what Jack did to Nichols a few weeks later.

[FrankO]

I think the thing that is important to realize is that most of the the newspaper accounts of killeen's testimony omitted mentioning the cut to the lower portion of the body. It seems clear to me if you compare the various accounts of the inquest, that this was done intentionally by the newspapers, because this one wound was considered too obscene to write about. What exactly Killeen said about this one wound is not clear, but in my opinion, (reading between the lines) it seems that it was a cut in the genital area (Swanson's "private part"). It is not hard to imagine why newspapers would choose to omit this particular detail from reports of Killeen's testimony. And Killeen himself may have mentioned the wound in a similarly euphemistic manner.

I think you've hit the nail right on the head here, Rob - my thoughts exactly!

Frank

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not aware that Kelly had any organs removed, please correct me if i am wrong.

There was hardly an organ that she didn't have removed, Shelley.

It did also look to me that Mary Kelly's killing was also in a frenzy.

Just because her killer made such an awful mess of her body doesn't mean that he was behaving in a frenzied manner. The methodical way in which copious amounts of flesh and viscera were moved out of the way so that further excavation could proceed, and the thorough de-fleshing of thigh and pelvic region, doesn't much look like a "frenzy" to me.

Anyway... for a Kelly thread, I think.

[robhouse]

hi Perrymason,

I think the thing that is important to realize is that most of the the newspaper accounts of killeen's testimony omitted mentioning the cut to the lower portion of the body. It seems clear to me if you compare the various accounts of the inquest, that this was done intentionally by the newspapers, because this one wound was considered too obscene to write about. What exactly Killeen said about this one wound is not clear, but in my opinion, (reading between the lines) it seems that it was a cut in the genital area (Swanson's "private part"). It is not hard to imagine why newspapers would choose to omit this particular detail from reports of Killeen's testimony. And Killeen himself may have mentioned the wound in a similarly euphemistic manner.

The account you have quoted I believe was printed in the Times.

But for example, after mentioning the wounds described in the Times account (punctures to the internal organs etc) The East London Advertiser (Aug 11) then says this: "Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made, and in answer to questions stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion.". It is clear he described the location of the wounds, but what he actually said is not printed.

By contrast, The East London Observer (Aug 11) runs very similar to the ELA account, but instead of the above quoted sentence (and in the same location in the article... i.e. the same part of his testimony) it states: "The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth. From appearances, there was no reason to suppose that recent intimacy had taken place."

Compare the full text of the two above accounts for yourself. It is clear that Killeen said something at this point in his testimony. The ELA says he "then described where the wounds had been made," and the ELO says, more specifically "The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth." The other news accounts dont mention anything at all.

It is clear that this is the part of the testimony that was omitted in almost all other news accounts of the testimony (including the Times account you posted, also th accounts in the Echo, The Evening News, and the Daily News), and we may infer why... because, the wound was in "the private part", and it was a cut, three inches long.

RH

[Shelley]

Sigh... there you go again, Mike!

I struggle how anyone can say that "real deliberate ripping open" didn't feature in Mary Kelly's murder; nor, indeed, how anyone can overlook the fact that Catherine Eddowes' facial wounds wasn't another example of "overkill with cuts".

The key thing to note in this context is that none of the evisceration murders committed in East London during 1888 were "overkill with stabs" - in fact, stabs are conspicuous by their absence in practically every case. That's more than can be said of Tabram.

Sam,

I'm not aware that Kelly had any organs removed, please correct me if i am wrong. It did also look to me that Mary Kelly's killing was also in a frenzy, and not exactly for the purpose of ' organ removal '. As for ' Eddowes Face ' i wouldn't exactly say that it was just butchery ( in a slap dash way ), although there is credence that JTR was diverted to Eddowes face in anger, but as you know i have previously mentioned that as a ' trigger ' concerning the smell of stale alcohol on Eddowes face & the killers memory at the time ( in other posts). However, this is by no means to me to be explains the ' ripping open ' of Eddowes body as without ' frenzy ' or ' rage ', as what is found with Tabram, with her body. So i for one understand what Mike is talking about & he does have valid points.

[Shelley]

I dont see how anyone could look at the death of Martha Tabram and not see clear and specific evidence there was anger in the killers actions.

Other than Marys face wounds, what specific injuries on any Canonical are overtly physically angry ones?

One hand could smother her mouth or choke her while he made some stabs, she would be weakening with each successive one and not likely require silencing at some point, perhaps after the throat stabs.

But the single most relevant piece of data that relates to her killer is 2 weapons. Whatever your preference, dagger or bayonet...both were quite likely being carried or worn by men that night, legally....there was at least one large wound caused by other than a "pen knife".

Martha Tabram is frenzied overkill with stabs, by the evidence, possibly by 2 separate individuals with one only stabbing once.....Mary Kelly is deliberate overkill with cuts...but the murders in between contain some real deliberate ripping open.....and thats a Jack signature.

Jacks forte isnt just killing at all.

Best regards all.

Quite right Perrymason, you've hit the nail on the head here. Any connection with JTR and Tabram as a victim is left on baseless ' Theory ' in the case of the possibility of 2 men being present. Tabram was indeed killed in a frenzied rage & this is not the typical approach of JTR killings. Still, people are welcome to thier theories, but it is not evidence of the same ' hand ' in the killing of Tabram, to that of Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes.

[FrankO]

Hi Michael,
Yes, I have been enjoying the weekend – thanks. I hope your weekend was good too.

On your last post, I dont see any hard evidence regarding any lifting of the hemline or abdominal cut as you do,... There is no clear "cut" to my knowledge, just 39 stabs that overlap at times.

Hard evidence. What is hard evidence these days?

In a number of newspapers PC Barrett deposed that ‘her clothes were thrown upwards’ or words to that effect.
The East London Advertiser of 11 August reads: “Her clothes were torn and completely disarranged, the bosom of the dress being torn away. She was in such a position as to lead him to infer that someone had been with her. Her clothes were thrown upwards.”

The East London Observer is even more clear: “The clothes were turned up as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs were open, and altogether her position was such as to at once suggest in my mind that recent intimacy had taken place.”

According to the latter newspaper Dr. Killeen deposed: “The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth. From appearances, there was no reason to suppose that recent intimacy had taken place.” And he corroborates Barrett’s deposition that the legs were open: “...and there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated.”

Also, Swanson wrote in a report of September 1888: “Dr. Keeling of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."

Perhaps this isn’t hard evidence that her clothes had been turned up as far as her middle and that she had received a cut-like wound to her private part. Perhaps, but I certainly aint willing to just sweep such information under the carpet. Certainly when seen in the light that this was all penned down at a time when everybody was still oblivious to what was going to happen to Nichols e.a..

Jack the Ripper killed Annie Chapman with 2 throat slits and immediately opened her abdomen and took organs out which he left with. He used one weapon, and his "focus" was not breasts, or the groin specfically...it was abdominal extractions from females.

You seem to have missed the point I made in an earlier post to you. Here's a more elaborate version of it. It's from a post I wrote in August 2006:

A couple of years back, I saw a TV programme about Ted Bundy. A police officer who had been involved in the case and who had interviewed Bundy (I don’t remember his name) said that he had worked on several serial killer cases and found that it’s not uncommon for serial killers to sort of start off ‘by accident’. They get into a situation where they're suddenly triggered to act and end up killing on impulse. Such attacks and murders don’t necessarily have to be very much like the ones that follow.

Although I’m unsure of it, Tabram’s case may have been an example of such an ‘accidental’ start. If true, I’m quite certain the Ripper would already have developed fantasies about killing and mutilating women and how he would do that, but he just wouldn't have thought about actually acting out those fantasies - yet.

So, in Tabram’s case he 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 with a prostitute. But this time, he may have found himself unexpectedly triggered by Tabram, who may have said or done something specific, which enfuriated him so that he killed her on impulse. We shouldn’t forget that, by that time, the Ripper would have been at the verge of ‘exploding’. And because he was mad as hell, ill prepared and inexperienced, he was perhaps able to act out only parts of his fantasies and split before he got caught.

With Tabram the Ripper may have passed a thresh-hold and decided to try if he could act out more of his fantasies. So, in the following cases he did go out with the intent to murder a woman and therefore would have been better prepared and able to control his anger and to actually act out his fantasies.

Although I remain on the fence about Tabram, this is how I see she could have been a Ripper victim.

All the best, Michael
Frank

Hi Frank,

Hope the weekend is going well. On your last post, I dont see any hard evidence regarding any lifting of the hemline or abdominal cut as you do, ...... I believe its even suggested by Killeen that he thought the focus was the breasts, the belly and the groin area.....which to me sounds like a match for Mary Kellys killers focus. All of the womens front sides. There is no clear "cut" to my knowledge, just 39 stabs that overlap at times.

From Killeen....."She had 39 stabs on the body. She had been dead some three hours. Her age was about 36, and the body was very well nourished. Witness had since made a post-mortem examination of the body. The left lung was penetrated in five places, and the right lung was penetrated in two places. The heart, which was rather fatty, was penetrated in one place, and that would be sufficient to cause death. The liver was healthy, but was penetrated in five places, the spleen was penetrated in two places, and the stomach, which was perfectly healthy, was penetrated in six places. The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone. His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, and that all of them were caused during life."

She appeared as if she struggled with the man or men, her clothing was disarranged...her hands were clenched indicating she was choked, ...and she was stabbed by someone facing her, 39 times, all up and down her body. One stab was made by a different weapon, much larger. It was described as a sword bayonet, or a dagger,....and its my opinion the quote was intended to have a comma after the word "sword". And we know of men that were wearing both weapons that night in that region...2 of which were seen in her company earlier.

Jack the Ripper killed Annie Chapman with 2 throat slits and immediately opened her abdomen and took organs out which he left with. He used one weapon, and his "focus" was not breasts, or the groin specfically...it was abdominal extractions from females.

Overkill doesnt describe Annies killers habits....but it is accurate in Marthas case.

All the best Frank.

[FrankO]

I see I have been a bit sloppy.

which in my view is even accentuated by that 3 inch wound to her groin.

'Groin' should read 'crotch'.

So, in that way Tabram's killer may well have given birth to the Ripper.

Well, not literally of course.

[FrankO]

Marthas killer just wanted to kill her. Thats all the evidence suggests.

Hi Mike,

Although I'm not sure at all that Tabram was killed at the hand of the Ripper, I beg to differ. Besides the timing and area, there's the deliberate lifting of the skirts and the 3 inch wound to her private parts. The lifting of those skirts was very likely done after Tabram had been down (dying or unconscious) and that in itself indicates a morbid interest, which in my view is even accentuated by that 3 inch wound to her groin.

What that tells me is that the man who killed Polly and Annie was different than a stabbing attacker,...

Besides what I've already suggested as a possible explanation for the frenzied stabbing as opposed to the deliberate cutting, just because the Ripper did what he did to at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, doesn't mean he couldn't have been stabbing women like Annie Millwood's attacker before he turned to killing and mutilating. For clarity I add that, going on the very limited information that we have, my impression is that Millwood's attack wasn't all that similar to Tabram's.

...and since stabbing predators were not as rare as postmortem abdominal mutilators in that area at the time, why would we imagine that suspect who just stabs and kills is related at all to the unique killer that is alleged by the authorities to have started to kill after Marthas death.

If it wasn't the Ripper who did for Tabram, her very murder may very well have triggered the Ripper into action. So, in that way Tabram's killer may well have given birth to the Ripper.

By the way, I don’t think it tells us all that much that the authorities thought Tabram - or whoever - was or wasn’t killed by the Ripper. Like with witness descriptions, to use their view as a point to bolster a modern theory or scenario doesn’t convince me or even influence my view, for that matter.

Cheers Michael,
Frank

Hi again,

One point Id like to address with Frank, on the issue of whether this could have been Jack before he had control over himself at crime scenes.

I dont think that anyone believes Jack the Ripper was merely killing women. Or that he just wanted to kill. The coroner at the Nichols Inquest suggested that both Annie and Polly were killed so the killer could obtain the organs he took....in Pollys case, likely the venue and a legitimate interruption prevented organ theft, but since Annie is found, murdered and mutilated in the same manner as Polly with only the organ theft as the new element, they felt the same signature was present.

Marthas killer just wanted to kill her. Thats all the evidence suggests. For this to have been Jack one would expect to find cuts made to the deceased's body....yet arguably all the wounds were stabs.

As I mentioned, before Martha there had been an attack on an Unfortunate in the Spring that ended with her being stabbed in the throat. There is an account of an Unfortunate being stabbed in the legs and buttocks.

No recent murder that precedes either Polly Nichols or Annie Chapman involved mutilating the corpse.

What that tells me is that the man who killed Polly and Annie was different than a stabbing attacker, and since stabbing predators were not as rare as postmortem abdominal mutilators in that area at the time, why would we imagine that suspect who just stabs and kills is related at all to the unique killer that is alleged by the authorities to have started to kill after Marthas death.

Martha was not included as a Canonical for good reason I think....although at least one inclusion suggests they may not have been 100% rational when establishing that 5 woman "spree". I suppose if they though Liz Stride fits the profile shown in the 1st and 2nd Canonical death....then anyone can be temporarily placed in that group.

Best regards Frank, all.

[FrankO]

Thanks for pointing that out, Don. I hadn't realised that. Still, it remains a pitty that no other information about this blow, if ever asked about and written down, has survived.

Frank