Was it really two blades?

[lynn cates]

knife qua surrogate

Hello. That number of stab wounds, and with a small knife sounds indeed like rage. That is the logical inference.

But suppose that the person had a sexual hang up and was, well, either impotent; or, the other extreme--hypersexual--and could no longer perform normally (if he ever could). Does it stretch imagination to the breaking point that the many knife thrusts were indicative of something else? Without intending to sound lewd, could the knife become a surrogate penis?

That is why I was wondering if the small wounds could have been administered post mortem. That could be a quiet, otherwise docile, scholar's initiation into the "thrill" of ripping. Couple that with an initial (or much improved) sexual high and . . .

lynn cates

Aborted mid-cut, though, Fish? I have enough problems dealing with the Diemschutz "interruption" theory, without this as well! Seriously, the intent - if there was any in Tabram's case - was on raining blow after blow on the upper body with a knife, as far as I see it... and as far as the evidence suggests.

Hey Sam,

On the above in bold......which to me suggests that the stabs were perhaps punitive, he was in a sense punishing her for something... real or imagined. Logically speaking, if anyone who was of the small percentage of the population who kills without a self defense situation being involved, wanted to cause the death of someone with a small-ish knife, they would...if under some semblance of self control....... go for the throat or the heart. Maybe even multiple times.

But he stabs her all up and down, dozens of times. Yes he hits organs many times,... but is he really trying to kill Martha Tabram? Like, right at that moment...to kill her. Is he showing that he is intent on her death as soon as possible while stabbing her, or is he showing us that he was caught up in his own psychological torment and emotional instability?

Its for that kind of reasoning that I like a 2 man team if you will, the man with the larger knife need not be involved at all until that single stab,...but could well have been. Hes the one with his equilibrium....he knows whats happened and what that means to his pal and himself....so he makes sure she is dead.

Cheers Gareth, all the best.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes. Yes, anybody who cut with an intent to have a look at the inside of Tabram or perhaps take away an inner organ or two, would surely have wanted to make more of the opportunity. Of course.

Therefore, if the intent really was there from the outset, we must accept that it was aborted for some reason.

Aborted mid-cut, though, Fish? I have enough problems dealing with the Diemschutz "interruption" theory, without this as well! Seriously, the intent - if there was any in Tabram's case - was on raining blow after blow on the upper body with a knife, as far as I see it... and as far as the evidence suggests.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam! You lost part of the quote on the way

Not at all, Fish - I just took your quote up to the relevant part that allowed me to follow with my own "doesn't sit well with me" contribution... namely, that if Tabram's killer really wanted to cut her abdomen, surely he'd have gone a little further than an ostensible scratch.

[Fisherman]

Lynn writes:

"Thanks much for the blow to the head info. That would explain her silence.
Would such a blow affect blood flow from any of the wounds?
Can we definitely rule out, then, any possibility that 1 or more of the pen knife thrusts were administered post mortem?"

The head-blow MAy be an explanation - if it the correct one we canīt tell Iīm afraid. She may have sustained it falling during the attack. I donīt think it would affect the blood flow at all.
We cannot totally ruleout that any of the pen knife thrusts were delivered post mortem. Sam Flynn has stated (and when Sam states such things, itīs always a good idea to listen) that the heart may go on pumping blood for some time after it has been pierced, and then there would be a bloodflow from any wound inflicted during that pumping. Then again, maybe such a situation would not allow for us to speak of a dead victim...!

The best, Lynn!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hmmm, Michael - I think you may be entitled to have a peep at my post to Sam too! It will save me another longish post!

The best,
Fisherman

What doesn't sit well with me, Fish, is the idea that someone who "intended" to cut the lower abdomen made such a nondescript incision. Whether you're JTR or not, if you're going to deliberately cut someone's abdomen, surely you're going to make more of the opportunity?

I agree, and precisely the point there Gareth, its lacking conviction.

I realize that there are a few reasons to ponder Marthas possible inclusion... primarily geographical, victim profile, time of day, and weapon used. Whats lacking is the conviction that is evident by a man prepared to subdue-kill-and mutilate a woman in public in as little as 5 or 6 minutes,....the throats cut so deep they are almost beheaded, the dramatic abdominal cuts, pulling out and setting aside internal obstacles, the force... and the urgency.

One man wouldnt use 2 weapons to do that, Jack wouldnt. But it appears 2 were used on Martha. That for me would be enough to rule Jack out for now.

Were it only that easy.

Cheers Sam

[Fisherman]

Sam!

You lost part of the quote on the way; itīs supposed to read "Of course, they may have kept their voices low, and the cut may have been a stab gone wrong - but it does not sit all that well with me ..."

Itīs both of these two bits I am not fond of - they were thorns in my side up to the point where I found that they may have an explanation in the scavenger scenario.
If it is the right explanation or not, I could not say. But it is an explanation that covers these bits, plus the rest of the details involved. That is why I am quite fond of it.

On your remark: "Whether you're JTR or not, if you're going to deliberately cut someone's abdomen, surely you're going to make more of the opportunity?", there is only one logical and reasonable answer: Yes. Yes, anybody who cut with an intent to have a look at the inside of Tabram or perhaps take away an inner organ or two, would surely have wanted to make more of the opportunity. Of course.

Therefore, if the intent really was there from the outset, we must accept that it was aborted for some reason. And thatīs where I think the sternum stab fits admirably as a pointer. As you know, I favour a scenario where Jack was the second man to get at Tabrams body with a knife. The first one was a disorganised stabber, a frenzied man with annihilation on his mind. Reasonably, he could have been a customer, and maybe he was taunted by Martha - it is a very old suggestion, and one that holds a lot of logic; customers and prostitutes make a deal, and both parts in that deal get what they want from it, so there is no sense in not sticking to it. Therefore, if that was the original staged setting, something must hve been added, and the most reasonable suggestion would be that Tabram pissed her customer off in some manner.

If this holds true, and if knife-wielder number one stabbed away 37 times, he would have left behind a woman that reasonably was dying, considering the wounds she had suffered. My contention is that the next knife-wielder on stage would have been Jack, my suggestion is that he never even gave the possibility that Tabram could still have been alive a thought, and my guess is that he simply fell prey to his inner urge of cutting up and eviscerating - he was made an offer he could not resist, to put it all in Godfatherish terms.

But what would his agenda have looked like, with such a scenario? Well, in all probability he would have been convinced that he had been presented with the dead body of a woman, ripe and ready for cutting up. And opening up women is the only urge we can safely say that our man had. The rest - perhaps partial suffocation, perhaps the odd blow of the fist, the cutting of the neck - could all be surmised to be nothing but necessities to enable him to eviscerate. Logicaly and reasonably, he did these things because he felt he HAD TO, and not because they represented any wish on his behalf (yes, the neck-cutting can be discussed, but letīs leave that for now).

I could be right, and I could be wrong, but letīs assume that I am right in this (itīs always nice to assume that you are right!). Then why is there a hole through the sternum on Tabram? That was not on our mans wish-list, was it?

My suggestion is that it was there because he was taken by surprise when he suddenly realized that Tabram was NOT dead - as witnessed about by Killeen! With that scenario, the sternum thrust becomes the twin sister of the neck-cutting later evinced by the Rippers activities. It comes about for the same reason: to definitely silence his victim and kill her. But it comes about as a post- and not a pre-addition, making us realize that perhaps there was no intent to kill as he started his cut to the abdomen - he would have believed that this detail had already been tended to by knife-wielder number one.
Perhaps she moaned, stirred or even cried out. But whatever it was, it forced him to give up his true agenda and kill her and flee the scene. Thatīs my suggestion. And it is not to say that he would not have preferred to proceed with the abdominal cutting, had he been awarded the time and the chance.

No further need to tell me that it is a theory that is not the simplest one; I realize that. But it is a theory that covers each and every little bit in the Tabram drama, and I have a soft spot for such things. Being faced with a possible scenario of 37 clean stabs to the mid and upper torso of Tabram - and one single wound that did not look like a stab at all and that was situated in a totally isolated spot, that spot in all probability being located on the lower abdomen, close to the reproductive organs - is something I find much more annoying. Why would the stabber slip up with just the one stab, when he inflicted 39 of them? And if he did slip up with just the one stab, why did it have to end up at that small area on Tabrams voluminous trunk? And why would this all come about three weeks before Nichols demise? The coincidences pile up, Sam, and there is every reason to believe that the pile of coincidences is trying to tell us something.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

how do we account for the cut to the lower abdomen? the cut may have been a stab gone wrong - but it does not sit all that well with me

What doesn't sit well with me, Fish, is the idea that someone who "intended" to cut the lower abdomen made such a nondescript incision. Whether you're JTR or not, if you're going to deliberately cut someone's abdomen, surely you're going to make more of the opportunity?

[lynn cates]

blood loss

Hello. Thanks much for the blow to the head info. That would explain her silence.

Would such a blow affect blood flow from any of the wounds?

Can we definitely rule out, then, any possibility that 1 or more of the pen knife thrusts were administered post mortem?

lynn cates

[Fisherman]

You may well be right, Michael, of course, and like you say, we always agree about the two men scenario!

Lynn, there is one more thing that may have lain behind the silence on that landing; an effusion of blood between scalp and skull-bone on Tabram. She may have been knocked unconscious or semi-unconscious by her assailant.

The best,
Fisherman

Hello. Sorry to be dumb, but how does one receive 38 wounds without making a noise?

Lynn Cates

Not dumb at all, its a good question....one answer would be that she was being choked at the time Lynn,...which would mean 2 people were involved, another might be that the throat stabs were first. Another might be that noise was made and either missed or ignored by the residents there.

I understand your reservations Fisherman, but we do have common ground on the notion that its two men at work here, almost certainly. So were only differing on the relationship between Mr Pen knife and Mr Dagger, not on the key issue...whether 2 knives were used and what that likely means in terms of the number of "assailants".

I think Cutbush could have done this one, but he would have worked solo so that doesnt explain the second weapon,...the same with a Bury type, or Puckridge,..but again, they were men that committed their acts alone.

Thats why the most obvious solution in this case to me is that Martha picked up one of 2 soldiers after the ones she and Poll picked up, or maybe she picked up 2 at once, and it was a soldiers bayonet or dagger that was used to finally end the assault. I think she picked up one man though....based on the lone soldier seen near the area waiting for a chum. If not him, there may well have been another soldier waiting for a chum....who finally goes to see whats taking so long and find him panicking over a woman with dozens of stabs but still breathing.

Cheers folks.

[lynn cates]

crying out

Hello. Sorry to be dumb, but how does one receive 38 wounds without making a noise?

Lynn Cates

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates suggests:
"Imagine, if you will, Martha being done in by a quick bayonet thrust from a drunken (perhaps insulted) military man. He flees, horrified by his action. Moments later, a seemingly docile young scholar with a sexual fetish--recently exacerbated (careful with that word) by pornography use, comes upon the scene. She's dead so, why not? Perhaps he received the final satisfaction he craved and would later need to initiate this on his own."

All of the wounds would have bled, Lynn; that would have been why Killeen was sure that the wounds were inflicted during life. And if the thrust through the sternum came first, and your scholar arrived some time later, then her blood would have had stopped flowing, and Killeen wouls not have asserted us that Tabram received all wounds while alive.

Michael writes:

"A drunk soldier loses his cool with a prostitute after she maybe tried to cheat him, or mocked or insulted him, or maybe hurt him physically....whose to say he didnt take the pen knife from her?.... His physical reactions are like many of the soldiers who come home from Wartime today...overly tweaked towards aggression and violence in dispute resolution.....he stabs her with a pen knife over and over again, as she slumps to the floor, he slows and stops....kneeling or sitting beside her now unconscious body...(as per Sam's idea ),.... his mate comes round the building, sees his chum with blood all over his hands and cuffs, the woman unconscious but still breathing, .....he pulls out a large knife to mercifully and finally kill the woman so when they leave they know her breathing had ended and she would not be resuscitated to testify against them someday.
The pen-knife stabs arent 38 individual attempts to kill Martha, they are exasperated expressions of rage....but the single stab with the dagger bayonet was to cause the end of life immediately."

Could be right, Michael; but how do we account for the cut to the lower abdomen? And why did the soldiers not communicate? It was a silent deed, byt the look of things. Of course, they may have kept their voices low, and the cut may have been a stab gone wrong - but it does not sit all that well with me ...

The best,
Fisherman

Mike,

Yeah, we talked about that scenario a few years back and it ties to the soldiers scenario. I don't believe anyone had a bayonet, however, and a single blade could do all the damage regardless of what one thinks Killeen said. If it was two men, the soldier idea seems the most likely. One man doing it is more logical. If we go with that, it must be one blade or some madness that is impossible to account for.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike,

I dont think that Im of the opinion that it was an actual bayonet either, but I do adhere to Killeens voiced opinions on the differences he noticed with one stab wound as compared with the many, many others. I have to believe that some of the pen knife wounds by their damage were full deep stabs to the length of the blade being used, some would be shallow because frenzied stabbing will inevitably cause erratic wound shapes and depths, but I believe we have 2 weapons here.

Soldiers to me seem a likely prospect, and we have her in the company of one of 2 near midnight, and 1 of 2 is seen near George Yard by a patrolman more than 2 hours later...supposedly waiting for a chum who was with a girl/woman at the time.

If we accept Killeen...and I see no reason on paper why we shouldnt, then we have one man with 2 knives, or 2 men with at least 1 knife each....or we have Martha with a pen knife that is taken from her by a single man with only a dagger on him.

That last one is my second choice, the 2nd is my first.

Cheers Michael