POLL: Ripper Victim or Not?

[lynn cates]

heads up

Hello Mike. Bagster said at inquest, "The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck." (Evans and Skinner, p. 87)

Have you ever separated a chicken--breast, from back, before cooking? In the process, should you stop before completely detached, there are shredded looking pieces that are pulling apart from one another. (I daresay Cris can confirm this). Whenever meat is pulled but not separated you would get this effect.

Cheers.
LC

[DrHopper]

I agree, Frank. The ripper's attacks on unfortunates had to start somewhere, and although it's highly likely that the killer had been nursing certain violent fantasies from his youth, something must have triggered him into action the first time he took a knife to a woman, and we can only guess what that something was. It need not have been directly connected with his fantasies, and I doubt it was the first time Tabram's killer had put himself in a similar position with such a woman. But once he'd attacked her on that dingy landing with fatal results, and realised he had got clean away with it, he had the means to another end - and he could have spent the rest of that month gearing himself up to go out next time with the sole object of trying out much more specific murder/mutilation fantasies. Use what works - victim type, location, approach and so on - then adapt the deed itself to the stuff of his long-held dreams.

Tabram may merely have provided him with whatever initial justification he needed to attack (anything from self-inflicted feelings of disgust to something she actually said or did to make him lose his temper), and she could have come in handy as the woman he was punishing each time he went for the throat of a total stranger.

If the ripper didn't kill Tabram, the motive for her murder, and its rarety even for the mean streets of Whitechapel, present us with greater problems in my view than if he did kill her before going on to Nichols and co.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you Caz for a superb post. You put into words my feelings/suspicions entirely, and in a far more coherent manner than I could achieve. This is why I think Martha Tabram was a victim of JTR.

[caz]

Thanks Dr H! I like your bedside manner.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The key for me with Martha is the obvious evidence that the killer was enraged. In a highly emotional state.

Hi Mike,

While I speculate that it was something about the actual encounter with Tabram that gave her killer the 'excuse' he needed to do what he did, I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can see 'obvious evidence' of rage, a highly emotional state, or anything else, in the injuries themselves.

For all we know he was having fun with her as a human pin cushion, delighting in sticking it to her with his knife good and proper until he lost interest or decided it wasn't safe to stay.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

While I speculate that it was something about the actual encounter with Tabram that gave her killer the 'excuse' he needed to do what he did, I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can see 'obvious evidence' of rage, a highly emotional state, or anything else, in the injuries themselves.

For all we know he was having fun with her as a human pin cushion, delighting in sticking it to her with his knife good and proper until he lost interest or decided it wasn't safe to stay.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I dont believe that there is a defensible position above. I would think almost anyone, forensically trained or not, would have to conclude that the sheer number of stabs and the concentrated number of stabs into some organs indicate that the killer was intent on violently murdering the woman, not playing with a pin cushion.

I believe that the number of wounds is a key element for investigators as they begin analyzing murder data because it can reveal a possible knowledge of the victim and a personal motive.

Regards,

Michael

[caz]

Playing with violence?

Hi Mike,

I walked into that one with my pin cushion analogy, didn't I?

But you can't really say anything about his 'intent' beyond an urge to stab this woman repeatedly. Being intent on 'violently murdering' her, and succeeding (as indicated by the number and nature of her stab wounds), still does not demonstrate how he was feeling inside while doing it, nor that he had to be 'enraged' or in a highly emotional state. The urge could have been a need, brought on by sudden anger, yes of course it could. But equally it could have been a desire, brought on by the sheer thrill of having a blade to hand, a woman completely in his power and the opportunity to go joyously berserk with both.

Unfortunately for you, if you want to go with a personal motive by someone known to the victim (on account of the number of wounds, for example, although I'm far from convinced if this only indicates a 'possible' relationship - talk about covering all the bases!), you will naturally be looking for potential suspects from among her known associates - real people with real names - which is a practice you apparently find abhorrent.

You can only test a theory about motive by finding an actual suspect who fits the bill.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

I am entirely in agreement with Caz on this...no need to add anything.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

Well, a personal relationship does exist between service provider and client, so if Martha was killed by a drunk client, perhaps because of unsatisfactory service delivery, withholding of services paid for, or any other number of reasons then the motive for murdering her would be personal. And if the drunk client feels cheated, ripped off, humiliated, whathaveyou....then you could quite naturally see a violent physical interaction, based on anger.

Martha was stabbed dozens of times while facing and moderately struggling with her killer, if that doesnt seem like the killer was angry and was punishing her to you then carry on with your beliefs.

If someone thinks that they see an image of a face in a cloud that doesnt mean the face is actually represented there...it just means that they see what their eyes and brain tell them.

Best regards,

Michael

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Bagster said at inquest, "The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck." (Evans and Skinner, p. 87)

Have you ever separated a chicken--breast, from back, before cooking? In the process, should you stop before completely detached, there are shredded looking pieces that are pulling apart from one another. (I daresay Cris can confirm this). Whenever meat is pulled but not separated you would get this effect.

Cheers.
LC

I understand the example Lynn, and I am aware that there was conjecture that decapitation was attempted using some forensic evidence, but I have seen decapitation in modern times done with a pen knife and no medical or anatomical knowledge. We also have here someone who had the physical capacity or methodology to subdue his victims without much if any struggle.

Surely a man capable of using a strong blade and of modest strength could have taken home a human hat stand if that was in fact a goal of his. It seems to me the neck wounds are of a different nature than the abdominal ones....the neck wounds seem to me to be to kill the victim assuredly, the other wounds were to facilitate other activities.

They are a step in what appears to be, in some of these cases, a 4 step process. Acquire a victim....kill them via major artery severing...open a cavity which can be used to extract materials....extract materials.

I think the killer just used more force on step 2 than he really needed. Perhaps to ensure success..because people can survive severe throat cuts.

All the best Lynn,

Michael

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Well, a personal relationship does exist between service provider and client, so if Martha was killed by a drunk client, perhaps because of unsatisfactory service delivery, withholding of services paid for, or any other number of reasons then the motive for murdering her would be personal. And if the drunk client feels cheated, ripped off, humiliated, whathaveyou....then you could quite naturally see a violent physical interaction, based on anger.

Martha was stabbed dozens of times while facing and moderately struggling with her killer, if that doesnt seem like the killer was angry and was punishing her to you then carry on with your beliefs.

If someone thinks that they see an image of a face in a cloud that doesnt mean the face is actually represented there...it just means that they see what their eyes and brain tell them.

Best regards,

Michael

That's really funny, Mike, because your first paragraph is pretty much what I have speculated myself, and regarding the second, I have made it as clear as it's possible to make it that he could very well have been angry as all hell and punishing her for something.

The rest of your post applies more to you than to me, however, because you are the one imagining you can see the killer's mood in the stab wounds, while I'm keeping an open mind about both his mood and his motive, because stab wounds are only stab wounds, just as clouds are only clouds.

Love,

Caz
X

[RavenDarkendale]

I have never understood the arguments against Tabram being a JtR victim. The 39 stab wounds show a very frenzied overkill. There were deliberate stabs to the genital area. We are taught by those who study serial killers that they start killing and then escalate in method and daring as they go.

I think Tabram was a victim, but I do not think she was his first victim. Look at it from this point. It was far from unusual to find murdered women in the horrible slims of Whitechapel and Spitalfields. The fact that Tabram was so violently attacked is what brings her case into history. Elizabeth Stride's murder would probably forgotten except for two things: 1) She was murdered at the time of the JtR murders. 2) The badly mutilated body of Catherine Eddows was found the same night within a short walk from the Stride murder scene.

JtR could have killed several before Tabram who went unnoticed because he had not yet escalated into his bloody dissection murders. Tabram he killed in a frenzy of rage and hate. Polly Nichols then became a dissection murder, definitely becoming bolder and more into what would be come the JtR forte.

[Garza]

I have never understood the arguments against Tabram being a JtR victim. The 39 stab wounds show a very frenzied overkill. There were deliberate stabs to the genital area. We are taught by those who study serial killers that they start killing and then escalate in method and daring as they go.

I think Tabram was a victim, but I do not think she was his first victim. Look at it from this point. It was far from unusual to find murdered women in the horrible slims of Whitechapel and Spitalfields. The fact that Tabram was so violently attacked is what brings her case into history. Elizabeth Stride's murder would probably forgotten except for two things: 1) She was murdered at the time of the JtR murders. 2) The badly mutilated body of Catherine Eddows was found the same night within a short walk from the Stride murder scene.

JtR could have killed several before Tabram who went unnoticed because he had not yet escalated into his bloody dissection murders. Tabram he killed in a frenzy of rage and hate. Polly Nichols then became a dissection murder, definitely becoming bolder and more into what would be come the JtR forte.

Actually murder records of England shows that knife crime against women was extremely unusual, even in a place such as Whitechapel, if my memory serves 10 women died via knife per year in whole of England during the 1880's... except 1888.

The extreme nature of the crime against Tabrum, plus the concentrated wounds on her thighs and stomach - areas that would be well scrutinised in the coming months of 1888, would for me lean to say that Tabrum was a Ripper victim.

Before Tabrum, it is hard to say. I think he did at least attempt harmful abuse on women before Tabrum.

[Phil H]

Garza - is there a reason why you call Matha "Tabrum"?

I have always concluded that Tabram's murder was probably by at least two men, and given her earlier associations, possibly soldiers.

If Martha has tried to dupe soldier-client, he may have come back with his mates to teach her a lesson.

I see no similarities or consistency with the Nichols killing months later.

Phil H

[Brenda]

.

This adds nothing to the conversation....just always wanted to point out that Martha Tabram's hair was neatly styled for someone that had just been murdered. She seemed to have fairly long hair and it only looks like maybe the back had gotten a bit loosened. Otherwise hardly a strand out of place.

[Phil H]

Brenda - are you basing your remarks on the mortuary photograph?

Can we really infer so much?

Could not a mortuary assistant or undertaker have brushed her hair? She appears to have been posed in a way that hides the worst of what was done to her.

If they cleaned the blood (if any) from her hair, they perhaps rearranged it.

Phil H