overkill

[Supe]

Frank,

If only good Dr. Killeen had mentioned a blow on the head

Ah, but he did. In his inquest terstimony he said "[O]n opening the head [he] found there was an effusion of blood between scvalp and bone." This is evidence of a very recent blow to the head. Though Fisherman, I know, is well aware of this element of Killeen's testimony it is often overlooked by others. Of course, we don't know the location of the blow and that is unfortunate because it might give an insight into whether it was self-inflicted (as in a fall) or someone striking her or slamming her head to the floor of the landing. In any case, though, if a strong enough blow and immediate to the attack it may have rendered Martha unconscious.

Don.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank! Nice, as always, to see you about!

Thanks, Fisherman, same here!

Let me start by saying that I fully agree with your closing remark! With so little information at hand, Tabram's murder could have taken place in pretty much any sequence and manner.

My guess is that it would be a hard thing to silence somebody who wanted to scream by means of stabbing with a smallish blade to the throat. Certainly, the vocal chords may be damaged, but would that happen quickly enough to ensure silence?

I don’t know, our voice isn’t only depending on the vocal cords, but also on the larynx and air pipe. And with 9 stabs, regardless of whether inflicted with a smallish blade or a biggish one, I’d say there’s a very good chance that at least one of those was hit. But I can well imagine that any stab in that small area would have given you trouble to speak, let alone scream. Why stab her so (absolutely & relatively) many times in such a relatively small area anyway?

And would anybody bet on such a method working, instead of just putting a hand over the mouth before stabbing away?

What would have been the use of stabbing the throat so many times if he was putting a hand over the mouth in the first place. It seems a pretty odd thing to do. The usefull thing to do seems to stab the chest where the heart is.

I have always opted for the effusion of blood doing the job - a blow on the head may well have rendered her unconscious and silent very quickly. But it is anybody´s guess!

If only good Dr. Killeen had mentioned a blow on the head, or signs of strangulation for that matter.

Perhaps. But there is also the possibility that he stabbed upward, from below, kind of "uppercuttish" if you take my meaning, at least when it comes to the wounds that hit the stomach area. Once again, it is anybody´s call!

If I have to choose between stabbing upward and downward, I’d choose downward. We know he stabbed her in the throat. It seems quite odd that he did that in the ‘uppercuttish’ manner that you proposed, so it seems likely that he at least did that from above, more or less in a downward motion. Considering that at least the initial attack seems to have been an attack guided by fierce anger, I’d find it a bit difficult seeing him swop from stabbing from above to stabbing from his side.

2. It is not a common thing for a killer to set out in a frenzy, thereafter suddenly letting that frenzy go, turning into a killer with a mind focused on lifting skirts and interesting himself in the sexual areas of the body. The more usual thing to do for a frenzied killer is to inflict massive heaps of unfocused violence up til the point where the red haze lets go of it´s grip, telling the perpetrator that the time has come to get the hell out of there.

Perhaps. But I don’t think it’s unimaginable what I suggested in a post above. If someone with the fantasies of the Ripper and on the verge of 'exploding' sort of accidentally came into the situation where he ended up killing a woman, I’m not sure he wouldn’t have been able, at some point, to start acting on those fantasies, with which he had undoubtedly lived for years. We know the Ripper later turned out to be willing to risk his life for acting them out. And there’s no need to think that he needed to have acted on his rage for minutes.

Cheers, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank! Nice, as always, to see you about!

You write:

"I've always held the view that those 9 stabs to her throat did the job of silencing her."

I´m not so sure that would work out, Frank. Would it not all lie in the question exactly where the stabs went in?
My guess is that it would be a hard thing to silence somebody who wanted to scream by means of stabbing with a smallish blade to the throat. Certainly, the vocal chords may be damaged, but would that happen quickly enough to ensure silence? And would anybody bet on such a method working, instead of just putting a hand over the mouth before stabbing away?

I have always opted for the effusion of blood doing the job - a blow on the head may well have rendered her unconscious and silent very quickly. But it is anybody´s guess!

"Certainly if he was bigger than her he would be stabbing her from above"

Perhaps. But there is also the possibility that he stabbed upward, from below, kind of "uppercuttish" if you take my meaning, at least when it comes to the wounds that hit the stomach area. Once again, it is anybody´s call!

I read you scenario for the strike, and I find that it resembles mine on more than one point, mostly perhaps where you see the possibility of two wounds having been caused by the larger blade.
As you will know, I favour a scenario with two knifemen, divided in time, the second being our man. The reasons for this are two:
1. It is not a common thing for a frenzied killer to swop weapons during an attack, and
2. It is not a common thing for a killer to set out in a frenzy, thereafter suddenly letting that frenzy go, turning into a killer with a mind focused on lifting skirts and interesting himself in the sexual areas of the body. The more usual thing to do for a frenzied killer is to inflict massive heaps of unfocused violence up til the point where the red haze lets go of it´s grip, telling the perpetrator that the time has come to get the hell out of there.

...but in this case too, the universal Ripperism applies: It is anybody´s call!

Wishing you well,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

In order to make a physically disorganized murderer, which Martha's was, into a physically organized murderer like the one that killed Annie was, what needs to transpire?

Hi Michael,

It may just be the difference between not going out with murder on your mind, not having thought about actually acting out your fantasies, but ending up killing someone in the spur of the moment anyway, and going out with the actual intent to kill someone and act out your fantasies.

Cheers,
Frank

With this murder the thread premise cannot be dismissed..., the death of Martha Tabram involved dozens of wounds to accomplish what Jack the Ripper did with one or two cuts to the throat.

In order to make a physically disorganized murderer, which Martha's was, into a physically organized murderer like the one that killed Annie was, what needs to transpire? And remember, its only one month...and there are no deaths within those 4 weeks other than Pollys to suggest he had any more "practice" than her murder.

Pollys murderer seems to use the same technique in acquisition as well as having similar goals to Annies killer, so it seems odd to me that a stab-to-kill type suddenly transforms to a throat cut-to-kill type within 3 weeks, without any intermediate steps in evidence, and keeps that same MO and Signature for his next murder within 10 days. If he changes so dramatically from Martha to Polly, why does only the venue change from Polly to Annie, and the actual removal of organs he apparently intended with Polly is added...or in the coroners opinion, his objectives with Annie and likely Polly too were completed?

There were stabbings that year, one in the throat of an Unfortunate earlier in the year.

Why must we morph a postmortem cutting throat slitter, just to explain what happens to Martha?

Best regards all.

[FrankO]

We must also keep in mind that the arm supporting her was preoccupied covering her mouth to keep her from screaming - it was a silent deed.

Hi Fish,

I've always held the view that those 9 stabs to her throat did the job of silencing her. Maybe that was even what they were meant to, as she may have said something to her killer that made him want to just shut her up initially.

Tabram would have slumped towards the ground pretty soon, considering the damage dealt to her - that, at least, is how I see it.

I fully agree. Certainly if he was bigger than her he would be stabbing her from above and he would sort of force her to slump down anyway.

I find it more credible that Tabrams silence was led on by the effusion of blood on her head, and that the same blow had rendered her both silent and helpless - and on her back on that landing, before the knives were used.

Whether the knife or knives were only used after she was completely down is very difficult to say, but I always see it playing out as follows.

She says something to her attacker that infuriates him so that he wants to shut her up, so he stabs her in the throat and keeps on stabbing her in the chest while she is slumping until she is on her back on the floor. While she's slumping he's slowly stepping back, making the later stabs ending up in the upper abdomen rather than in the chest.

Then he comes somewhat to his senses and decides to look under her skirts. So he works them up, perhaps takes out his bigger knife, cuts her private parts when she suddenly moves of makes a sound. That makes him panic, so he aims for the heart but stabs her in the chestbone and he gets the hell out of there.

It's a pity we don't have all that much information about this murder, so this scenario is really a 'stab in the dark'. I would have liked to know whether her breathing had been interfered with, where in the body the remainder of the stab wounds had been inflicted, what the layout of the landing was and how her body was situated on it, etc.

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe it also belongs to the discussion that a body on it´s back would be somewhat compressed, therefore allowing a shorter blade to travel deeper into the organs?

Indeed so, Fish. Good observation.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Even an overweight person's skin consists of only an inch and a half or so of fatty tissue, Fish - and that at its thickest. Given that the majority of Tabram's wounds were inflicted on the chest and upper abdomen (where the fat isn't as thick), a blade of perhaps 4 inches in length may have been sufficient. It's not inconceivable that a penknife would have a blade that long."

Interesting, Sam - I did not know this, and I would have opted for a longer blade (which, of course it may well have been).
Maybe it also belongs to the discussion that a body on it´s back would be somewhat compressed, therefore allowing a shorter blade to travel deeper into the organs?

The best,
Fisherman

I think one barrier to more forceful stabs Sam is that this was described as a pen knife, which by dictionary definition was a folding knife. One strike into bone might be enough to break or damage the weak locking systems that were on those knives of the period,... and then the blade closure, which would fold into or against the hilt, might seriously cut or slice off his own finger(s).

These are not instruments designed to stab with, they were for minor knife use like Richardson used the table knife for on the back steps at Hanbury. For carving, whittling anything that places the force being exerted against the blade in its open position, and away from the hilt.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Even an overweight person's skin consists of only an inch and a half or so of fatty tissue, Fish - and that at its thickest. Given that the majority of Tabram's wounds were inflicted on the chest and upper abdomen (where the fat isn't as thick), a blade of perhaps 4 inches in length may have been sufficient. It's not inconceivable that a penknife would have a blade that long.

Don't forget, also, that skin (and fat) is elastic, and that only a modest amount of force can compress and deform it. On that basis, a 4" blade could easily penetrate through to the underlying viscera, if propelled by a stabbing motion.

[Fisherman]

Lozle writes about:

"...the shallow, numerous stabs ..."

But these were not shallow stabs, Lozle; keep in mind that Tabrams lungs, spleen, liver, stomach etc were pierced by them! That of course tells us that the blade that Killeen described as being of a pen-knife resemblance, would not have been shortish. Tabram was a voluminious woman, and the blade must have travelled trough many inches of flesh to produce the type of damage Killeen reports on.

On Michaels suggestion that Tabram may have been stabbed standing up, I cannot exclude the possibility, but I am of another mind myself. People who are subjected to stabbings towards the chest and stomach area in the kind of position she would have been in, with the perpetrator nailing the victim against a wall, typically receive stabbings that travel into the body at an upward angle that gives away how they have been standing. No such angling of the knife is mentioned by Killeen. Moreover, supporting Tabrams full weight throughout a 39-stab onslaught would have taken an immensely strong arm. We must also keep in mind that the arm supporting her was preoccupied covering her mouth to keep her from screaming - it was a silent deed. And how do you support the weight of a heavy woman like Tabram by covering her mouth?
Tabram would have slumped towards the ground pretty soon, considering the damage dealt to her - that, at least, is how I see it. I find it more credible that Tabrams silence was led on by the effusion of blood on her head, and that the same blow had rendered her both silent and helpless - and on her back on that landing, before the knives were used.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lozle]

Hey,

Very interesting points which are similar to what me and Halomanuk were discussing earlier. I have been going over similar scenarios in my head. Though I've never been overly successful in writing it out coherently, just resort to giving the brie idea, so again, thank you. Glad i'm not the only one thinking that way.

Though, unfortunately what went on at that specific time and what ever triggered the act, will never be sure.

Many thanks.

Hi again Folks,

This is an interesting murder contextually Fisherman, I agree,...it would be hard to suggest that this murder didnt signal some new killer styles in that area, at that time.

My belief is that if killers evolve, and there were attackers/killers other than Jack killing women that Spring and Fall, whose to say which evolving killer is present at the individual murders?

I think "opening" the deceased is the key. He didnt want all of them, just parts of them.

I could see any myriad of explanations working for how this may have occurred....she taunts client, he flips out....second man comes by and makes sure shes dead when they leave immediately after.....or....one soldier comes by and catches his mate with Martha, respectfully not a Monroe type, taunts him for having to pay her, and he demands his money back embarrassed and she demurs......or, he is rough with her, she gets nervous and tries to push him away, he pounces towards her, one hand over her mouth the other stabbing away...

I think all one man would have had to do to is to keep her pinned against the wall and to use his forearm and hand to pin her and cover her mouth, the free hand to stab her.....its not said how long it took from stab 1 to stab 39, but it may have been what, 20-30 seconds? She wouldnt be able to call out.

I think she was pinned against a wall, not lying down, and maybe one man held her and her mouth from behind, when he drops her, the stabber pockets his pen-knife, and borrows his mates bayonet to finish her. It may have been robbery.

Cheers all.

[Lozle]

Hi Barry,
Cheers =oD. Take care.

[halomanuk]

Welcome to the forum by the way,there is a thread that you can introduce yourself if you want :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2755