overkill

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[Shelley]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for that info......I did pull out a book & go through it that Dr Bond did say Kelly's heart was ' absent ' as he put it. Perhaps i fused the hoax Maybrick diary & assumed that ' heart taken ' was part of the hoax. Oh, well good old Dr Bond then, he meant ' absent ' as in missing from the crime scene.

With Tabram i don't think anything can be read into the injury of her head, as i stated in an earlier post on this thread, that the injury could have occurred with her head banged against the wall in the attack, and yes there was a struggle it seems in Tabram's case which is different from any of the canocials, including Mary Kelly as she did appear to have defence wounds on her thumb & hand, injuries on this hand that had not been aquired prior to her death.

Regards
Shelley

[Shelley]

Nonsense.

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



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

Ben, On Line 1 you haven't used any base for argumentation for your points on Tabram being a Jack the Ripper Victim, even though you are aware that my points based on evidences differ from yours.

Line 2: I personally don't see Mary Kelly as a Jack the Ripper Victim either.

So what's your point Ben?

[robhouse]

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.

I'm not quite sure what this means... I was just pointing out that the version of Killeen's testimony you quoted left out some stuff. And because in my opinion, this particular wound is relevant. Not sure what you mean about winning friends and influencing people... are you talking about me?

Sam, I realize of course that this wound does not compare with the later wounds. But I do think it is significant if indeed it was a cut to the genitals.

RH

[Jon Guy]

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.

But it does, Sam. Both Tabram and Nichols received one, possibly two cuts or stabs to the privates.

[Lozle]

Hi again,

Back tracking a bit, I think that IF this was in fact JTR, I believe that it is a plausible arguement that Tabram may - as Frank mentioned earlier - have triggered his rampage, been an "accidental" start. Theory and common sense tells us that this act was acted out, motivated and driven by emotion... perhaps JTR did in fact jump in unprepared... though I believe that if JTR can commit numerous murders in the same manner, referring to the cutting open and taking of trophy's, I believe it is more than likely that he had fantasies of his method before ANY killings, therefore I would be inclined to think - even if unprepared - he would not stab, but would - at the very least - slash...

In relation to the skirt being lifted, maybe this was an amateur, in a bit of an emotional state, coming out of the "red mist", and seizing the opportunity to seek some gratification by endulging in a glance... PERHAPS... BIG IF HERE... perhaps the position of the body suggesting a sexual act occurred after death. Killed and then sexual gratification as the legs apart suggest a certain intimate act.

Personally, I'm still strongly set on the possibility the murder was commited by a soldier - who was sited in her company and in the area at the time the body was discovered - who, for some reason "lost it" due to something that happened... perhaps Martha Tabram ridiculed him... That too is common sense that men dont particularly agree or take it too well when a woman belittle's a man... especially if they believe she is an Unfortunate and has no right to say anything of the sort. If she said something in a drunken state to offend him, this could explain the fixation of numerous stabs to the neck / throat. And the heart to make sure she can never do it again by making sure she's dead.

Martha Tabram's murder was motivated by personal factors, JTR was not concerned with personal influences. Tabram's murder was uncontrolled and frenzied, JTR is imfamous for his controlled and shocking killings. JTR shocked the entire nation by butchering, sergically removing organs from Unfortunates. If this murder was performed by one and the same JTR, then I believe there would be some indication between killings in the methods JTR favored. JTR is renowned for slitting, slashing and cutting open, this murder is focused on stabbing, which is a much more personal way to kill someone.

As for what the media included and / or excluded or what officials held back, I find it quite difficult to grasp that the media would down play such an angry murder. I would imagine they would to try bleed it for all the story was worth. Their primary concern was sales. But thats my opinion.

Many thanks.

[Ben]

Hi Lozle,

though I believe that if JTR can commit numerous murders in the same manner, referring to the cutting open and taking of trophy's, I believe it is more than likely that he had fantasies of his method before ANY killings, therefore I would be inclined to think - even if unprepared - he would not stab, but would - at the very least - slash...

As ever, our views ought really to be dictated more than anything else by a knowledge of other serial cases, and the notion of a serial killer having very specific fantasies about how he intends to dispatch a victim before carrying out those fantasies precisely to the letter first time around doesn't have much historical precedent. Far more often, serial killers will have a more generalized idea of their method before converting those plans into a seemingly amateurish first assault, which he then improves upon as he gains experience. Tabram would fit rather nicely into the latter category.

All the best,
Ben

[Lozle]

Hey,

If it was JTR, he perfected his method rather quickly It was a matter of weeks between Martha and Polly, a suspected Ripper victim. In those weeks - with no apparent "practise" on any other human being - went from personal and clumsy to controlled and skillful... Unless it was 2seperate people in 2seperate context of killing OR 2people... yes that old faithful theory.

Many thanks.