POLL: Ripper Victim or Not?

[mariab]

the Ripper and porn

Barnaby,
If you don't mind my butting in. In my personal interpretation, IF Tabram was a Ripper victim (which most of the time I suspect she was) there are 2 very significant details in the evidence left:

1.The fact that the killer most obviously did not control the situation (hence the multiple knife wounds), after which it makes perfect sense that he might have reflected on a quicker/safer way to do it and figured out that the jugular from behind was the thing. The fact that he didn't initially see fit to try this technique immediately on Tabram does not necessarily imply that he hadn't used the technique of cutting a jugular before, in the army or with animals.

2.Tabram had a lot of blood between her legs. If I recall it correctly, Don Souden claims in his article that the blood between her legs might have come from internal injuries in the stomach/liver. In my opinion, Tabram might have spotted tentative genital mutilation. Dr. Killeen's statement at the inquest very unfortunately leaves a LOT of information out, and concentrates mainly on the damage inflicted upon the internal organs (proving the point that Tabram's uterus, like Nichols', was not severely damaged, otherwise it would have been mentioned).

Comparing the Ripper's (or any other serial killer's) "progression" to evolving preference in porn genres (from Playboy to softcore to hardcore to harder stuff to snuff) is not gonna cut it, cuz watching porn is essentially a passive activity, plus, like you said in your post, "progressing" from genre to genre might take time. A killer's "progression" compares real good to sexual practices, from 1st base to 2ond base to 3d base (to 4th base etc., lol). Plus I don't see what you mean with "from Playboy to snuff", as there's a very clear line of gradual progression from Tabram to MJK.

Another very significant question would be to research what came before Tabram. This also depends a lot on suspectology. If one were to consider Kozminsky, Millwood should be considered, if one were to consider Le Grand, Emma Smith could not be left out, etc..

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

I voted in this poll and I thought I had posted too, but apparently not! (My brain must look like Swiss cheese, lol.)

Anyway...I voted "yes". Obviously I can't know for sure, I don't suppose anyone can--except the killer himself and unless he's as old as Methuselah...

In the beginning I discounted Tabram as a Ripper victim and I must admit it was probably because she wasn't considered one of the "canonical five", so I thought there must be good reason for experts in this field to discount her. But the more I read about the case, the more I'm inclined to think that Martha Tabram probably was an early Ripper victim. I'm still not 100% convinced, but as I am (at the moment anyway) about 90% convinced she was murdered by Jack, obviously I feel compelled to vote "yes".

And I agree--RIP, Martha. You and the other victims deserved much better than this.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I am in the minority who voted no, although I really go back and forth. JTR's whole objective seems to be opening the body, removing organs, etc. And while I can see that the methodology he used to accomplish this might change rapidly based on experience (for example, multiple stab wounds to strangulation/throat cutting to cause death), I don't see the overall objective changing this quickly. The fact remains that Tabram was not ripped like the others. With Stride one can argue that Jack was interrupted; I simply don't know enough to say if this could be argued here as well.

I would agree on balance.

I can't believe that someone who knew how to cut someone's throat in a manner that minimised blood flow onto himself, didn't realise that it was a good idea 3 weeks earlier.

There is always the possibility, however, that he did know that, that there was no evolution in understanding; but, rather, he couldn't manouvre Tabram into the necessary position.

Coles seems like a better bet to me, which presents its own problems.

[mariab]

I can't believe that someone who knew how to cut someone's throat in a manner that minimised blood flow onto himself, didn't realise that it was a good idea 3 weeks earlier. There is always the possibility, however, that he did know that, that there was no evolution in understanding;

As mentioned in my previous post, I suspect there might have been an evolution in figuring out which way to kill fast. Another suspicion I'm having is, the perp might have started with Tabram with a beating/maiming in mind and it escalated into murder. After all, Tabram was hit on the head with a heavy object. Keep in mind that Emma Smith wasn't murdered either, at least to the perps' knowledge. (That is, IF Smith and Tabram's attacks were related at all.) What if the Ripper killed Tabram "spontaneously" and got interested in murder as a consequence?

but, rather, he couldn't manouvre Tabram into the necessary position.

It's also my suspicion that Tabram might have put up a fight, hence the multiple knife wounds (allegedly 39), some of which are NOT accounted for by Dr. Killeen. Could it be that the non commented upon wounds were defense cuts on her arms and hands?

[FrankO]

I can't believe that someone who knew how to cut someone's throat in a manner that minimised blood flow onto himself, didn't realise that it was a good idea 3 weeks earlier.

There is always the possibility, however, that he did know that, that there was no evolution in understanding; but, rather, he couldn't manouvre Tabram into the necessary position.

Hi all,

What if the Ripper in Tabram’s case didn’t go out with murder on his mind, hadn’t thought about actually acting out his fantasy yet?

He may just have just gone out, like many nights before, have a couple of pints, maybe wanted to end up in an alley doing a knee-trembler. But this time, he may have found himself unexpectedly triggered by Tabram, who may have said or done something specific, which infuriated him so that he killed her on impulse. And because he was mad as hell, ill prepared and inexperienced, he didn’t attack and kill in the efficient way of future murders and 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, to kill efficiently and to actually act out his fantasies.

Although I remain on the fence about Tabram (and therefore haven’t voted), this is how I see she could have been a Ripper victim.

All the best,
Frank

[mariab]

maybe wanted to end up in an alley doing a knee-trembler. But this time, he may have found himself unexpectedly triggered by Tabram, who may have said or done something specific, which infuriated him so that he killed her on impulse.

Interestingly enough, this is the scenario presented by Don Souden in his article, though he DOESN'T consider Tabram as a Ripper victim.

IF the blood between Tabram's legs was the result of a genital injury, we have a link to the Emma Smith case. And IF Tabram was killed "spontaneously", it might explain the escalation into Nichols (who spotted tentative genital mutilation), then Chapman, etc.. The "signature"/common denominator in all these murders is the genital mutilation. As for Stride, I consider her an interrupted attempt, not (like Tom Wescott has suggested) a planned decision to go out and kill 2 that night, leaving the first one with no mutilations for efficiency. I doubt that this would have satisfied the killer at this point.

[Sally]

Yes..

As I'm sure many would agree, the idea of a fully fledged killing 'Jack' suddenly popping out of the woodwork to kill Nichols without any evolution is a bit of a stretch. It would be a different matter if we didn't know of other 'unfortunates' who had been attacked and killed in Whitechapel during the preceding months - but we do.

Whilst the possibility of course exists that Tabram was somebody else's victim, I consider it an outside possibility given the circumstances.

I would think that the killer was less in control at that stage than he was later; and that he learned and perfected his 'work' from his earlier experiences, which doubtless encompassed more women than Tabram alone.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As I'm sure many would agree, the idea of a fully fledged killing 'Jack' suddenly popping out of the woodwork to kill Nichols without any evolution is a bit of a stretch.

I wouldn't.

The pattern as we know it is cutting the throat causing instant death in a manner that allows the blood to flow away from him.

The idea that he would have learned this from the Tabram murder simply defies logic. If he's bright enough to work out the blood flow direction technique, then he's bright enough to know that if you stab someone in a frenzied manner then you will have blood on your person more so than in the Nichols murder. So, the Tabram murder wouldn't have taught him any lessons at all.

The suggestion seems to be that Jack was a bright fella, who, within a 3 week period, learned how to kill efficiently and minimise blood impact; but 3 weeks earlier was a stupid fella who failed to grasp that stabbing someone 39 times was a recipe for copious blood flow and a general mess of a kill.

I don't buy it at all.

I think we're looking at someone who knew how to kill in the Nichols manner through work or training, with the only possible window of opportunity for Tarbam being a Jack event being that he intended to kill her in the same manner as Nichols except he couldn't manouevre her into position (for whatever reason).

Edited to add: I don't think he is a fully fledged Jack at all. The mutilitations do show exploration and discrepancies. But I would argue that he knew how to kill in the Nichols manner from the outset. The throat cutting technique is not something that simply jumps out at the average person. I'm not dim and I wouldn't have arrived at that conclusion - particularly as the Tabram killing told him nothing he wouldn't already have known.

[Michael W Richards]

I wouldn't.

The pattern as we know it is cutting the throat causing instant death in a manner that allows the blood to flow away from him.

The idea that he would have learned this from the Tabram murder simply defies logic. If he's bright enough to work out the blood flow direction technique, then he's bright enough to know that if you stab someone in a frenzied manner then you will have blood on your person more so than in the Nichols murder. So, the Tabram murder wouldn't have taught him any lessons at all.

The suggestion seems to be that Jack was a bright fella, who, within a 3 week period, learned how to kill efficiently and minimise blood impact; but 3 weeks earlier was a stupid fella who failed to grasp that stabbing someone 39 times was a recipe for copious blood flow and a general mess of a kill.

I don't buy it at all.

I think we're looking at someone who knew how to kill in the Nichols manner through work or training, with the only possible window of opportunity for Tarbam being a Jack event being that he intended to kill her in the same manner as Nichols except he couldn't manouevre her into position (for whatever reason).

Edited to add: I don't think he is a fully fledged Jack at all. The mutilitations do show exploration and discrepancies. But I would argue that he knew how to kill in the Nichols manner from the outset. The throat cutting technique is not something that simply jumps out at the average person. I'm not dim and I wouldn't have arrived at that conclusion - particularly as the Tabram killing told him nothing he wouldn't already have known.

A slaughterman would likely use the same technique to kill animals, a butcher would likely use a developed preference for how he cuts the carcass and what he intends to harvest from it. The jobs are repetitious, require some skill with a knife and some knowledge of internal structures, and are not for the faint of heart.

Just the kind of attributes we would find in the killer of the first 2 Canonical victims. And, we have a good candidate for that man. Someone identified as bloodied and strange the morning of the Chapman killing, a few hundred yards from the spot.

Hes no Jack the Ripper though, he is institutionalized after the 2nd Canonical murder.

Hes a good reason for considering multiple killers of the Canonical Group.

Best regards,

Michael

[Wickerman]

The idea that he would have learned this from the Tabram murder simply defies logic.

Agreed.

If he's bright enough to work out the blood flow direction technique, then he's bright enough to know that if you stab someone in a frenzied manner then you will have blood on your person more so than in the Nichols murder. So, the Tabram murder wouldn't have taught him any lessons at all.

Agreed.

The suggestion seems to be that Jack was a bright fella, who, within a 3 week period, learned how to kill efficiently and minimise blood impact; but 3 weeks earlier was a stupid fella who failed to grasp that stabbing someone 39 times was a recipe for copious blood flow and a general mess of a kill.

Again, agreed. With one caveat, the Boston Strangler did stab one of his victims multiple times in a frenzy.
The reason he gave for this departure from the norm was, "she just wouldn't shut up!"
Whether that demonstrates any relevance in this case I don't know.

I think we're looking at someone who knew how to kill in the Nichols manner through work or training,....

Someone who knew how to kill and was adept at strangulation. A high degree of probability exists that "Jack" was, first and foremost, a strangler.

It borders on the ludicrous to consider a knife whealding villain will begin his assault by trying to strangle his victim while he has a knife in his pocket.

So long as evidence of suffocation/strangulation exists then logic dictates this was his preferred and primary method of assault.
The knife was necessary to render them 'dead' and to proceed with mutilations.

No official involved with the Tabram murder suggested that she was strangled, but they apparently missed this detail in other cases too.
We see from the mortuary photo of her face (position of tongue), and the statement that her "hands were clenched", as reasonable indicators that, "in our opinions" she may have first been strangled.

And 'that'!, is the only reason I don't rule her out as a Ripper victim altogether.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

A slaughterman would likely use the same technique to kill animals, a butcher would likely use a developed preference for how he cuts the carcass and what he intends to harvest from it. The jobs are repetitious, require some skill with a knife and some knowledge of internal structures, and are not for the faint of heart.

Just the kind of attributes we would find in the killer of the first 2 Canonical victims. And, we have a good candidate for that man. Someone identified as bloodied and strange the morning of the Chapman killing, a few hundred yards from the spot.
l

And yet, don't you find it strange that this killer wasn't able to decapitate Nichols or Chapman, even though there are indications that it was attempted? Even I can decapitate a large game animal with a knife fairly quickly. I would imagine a butcher or slaughterer could have too. There's much information about the medical evidence in these cases that was misinterpreted or overlooked at the time and still is to this day.

[Wickerman]

And yet, don't you find it strange that this killer wasn't able to decapitate Nichols or Chapman, even though there are indications that it was attempted?

Although they do not say what the indication was, I would assume they mean that knife marks were apparent in the cartilage between the cervical vertebrae.
Simple cut marks across the front of any vertebrae would not constitute an attempt to separate the head from the body. Such marks would only indicate a deep cut down to the bone.

Regards, Jon S.

[caz]

Hi all,

What if the Ripper in Tabram’s case didn’t go out with murder on his mind, hadn’t thought about actually acting out his fantasy yet?

He may just have just gone out, like many nights before, have a couple of pints, maybe wanted to end up in an alley doing a knee-trembler. But this time, he may have found himself unexpectedly triggered by Tabram, who may have said or done something specific, which infuriated him so that he killed her on impulse. And because he was mad as hell, ill prepared and inexperienced, he didn’t attack and kill in the efficient way of future murders and 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, to kill efficiently and to actually act out his fantasies.

Although I remain on the fence about Tabram (and therefore haven’t voted), this is how I see she could have been a Ripper victim.

All the best,
Frank

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

[Bridewell]

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.

Hi Caz,

Well put. Entirely agree with your line of reasoning.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

And yet, don't you find it strange that this killer wasn't able to decapitate Nichols or Chapman, even though there are indications that it was attempted? Even I can decapitate a large game animal with a knife fairly quickly. I would imagine a butcher or slaughterer could have too. There's much information about the medical evidence in these cases that was misinterpreted or overlooked at the time and still is to this day.

Hi Hunter,

The speculation that the marks were attempts to decapitate must be taken as just that...speculation. I feel the marks may well have occurred because the killer intended to make the throat cut as deep and as lethal as he could, ensuring some volume of blood was expelled, making the next steps less bloody, hence, less slippery.

The key for me with Martha is the obvious evidence that the killer was enraged. In a highly emotional state. I dont see the need for any emotions to be present with Pollys murder, other than perhaps some fear and as a result, a less than complete kill,.. nor do I see Annie murder as the result of an enraged killer. He cut stomach flaps for heavens sake. Why not just slit her gullet to gizzard and slice out whatever is there? He was doing what he knew would accomplish his goals,.. tediously, repetitiously.

All the best Hunter,

Michael