overkill

[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

[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.

[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

[perrymason]

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]

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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[perrymason]

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]

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

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

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

[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.