Ripper Victim?

[Shelley]

yes but the Ripper cut the throat too and Tabram's murder doesn't have the Rippers M.O, but it could be an inexperienced JTR as mentioned above

Malcom X,
Yes there are differences as to MO with Tabram and those in the canocial 5. However, do not go by incorrect information, nowhere does it say that Tabram had any signs of strangulation, it is not recorded that she had a swollen protruding tongue, and judging by her photograph, that does not have any indication that she was strangled or partially either. Her face appears swollen but this could well be due to undernourishment & bloating, she was a plump woman Martha Tabram. However the Doctor recorded that Chapman had a swollen tongue. Having a swollen/engorged face is not a classic sign of strangulation here. Therefore Tabram isn't a possibility that she may have been strangled nor did she have her throat cut, both which do not match some of the canocials. I have heard everything on this thread, Tabram was strangled ( or partially), Tabram died with a stab to the heart, there were 2 attackers because of two weapons etc. Also a killer can carry two weapons, it is not impossible nor improbable.

[Malcolm X]

Malcom X,
Yes there are differences as to MO with Tabram and those in the canocial 5. However, do not go by incorrect information, nowhere does it say that Tabram had any signs of strangulation, it is not recorded that she had a swollen protruding tongue, and judging by her photograph, that does not have any indication that she was strangled or partially either. Her face appears swollen but this could well be due to undernourishment & bloating, she was a plump woman Martha Tabram. However the Doctor recorded that Chapman had a swollen tongue. Having a swollen/engorged face is not a classic sign of strangulation here. Therefore Tabram isn't a possibility that she may have been strangled nor did she have her throat cut, both which do not match some of the canocials. I have heard everything on this thread, Tabram was strangled ( or partially), Tabram died with a stab to the heart, there were 2 attackers because of two weapons etc. Also a killer can carry two weapons, it is not impossible nor improbable.

i never said Tabram was strangled...because she wasn't, but ``old shakespear `` was.....Tabram was stabbed to death, i think you're confusing me with another poster, never mind.

you say that there are differences in M.O, but it's more like a totally different M.O..period, this looks like a couple of street killers in a rage!

the only way this can be JTR, is if he was on a steep learning curve, if not it's someone else.

[Fisherman]

Malcolm writes:

"the only way this can be JTR, is if he was on a steep learning curve, if not it's someone else."

A fair assessment, Malcolm! My own suggestion, though, is that we may be dealing with TWO people carrying knives here, and that 37 of the 39 wounds were dealt by a frenzied assailant, whereas the other two - the one to the heart and the cut to the lower body - were inflicted by Jack. We know that the heart stab was made by another blade than the smaller wounds, and we need to realize that the cut may have been dealt by either of these blades, since cuts do not give away the shape and width of a blade to much of an extent.
In conclusion, if Iīm right, we can envisage Jack using his knife twice, and both of these times there was purpose and reflection behind the infliction of the wounds. One of them was directed to Jacks favoured area of interest, and the other one had the single purpose to kill. Which - of course - is what we all know Jack will do, given the time; he will kill his victim and he will cut to the abdomen. So we may well be dealing with a strike that is very close to the others in many a respect.

Having plowed through the material on this thread over the last few days, I notice that things that have been discussed in relation to Tabram before, have once again popped up in a manner they really ought not to. Sam writes that there were no cuts in Tabrams case - but we know that there was a wound that came out as a cut, whatever it was intended as; three inches long and one inch deep, it sure is no traditional stab whichever way we look at it. And where did it end up, hmmmm? Exactly - at the lower body; arguably it may have been inflicted in the near vicinity of the womb.
And Chava once again tells us that the staircase was narrow - but we have mrs Mahoney telling us that there was room enough for her to pass Tabrams body on the landing without seeing or coming in contact with it, since the landing was large where it all happened.
Why is it that things like these always keep reoccurring, no matter how badly they tally with the evidence?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here is mrs Mahoney, from the East London Observer of August 11, 1888:

"On neither occasion, either in coming up or going down the stairs, did I see the body of a woman lying there. It is quite possible that a body might have been there, and that I did not notice it, because the stairs are very wide and were completely dark, all the lights having, as usual, been turned out at eleven o'clock."

And there we are; the stairs were in fact "very wide".

The best,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

tabram being killed by two men is the most likely, but one of them being the Ripper, i haven't heard of this before........ an interesting theory, but i dont quite know what to say.

the Ripper to me has always been a lone wolf, i cant vision him with someone else, the Stride murder yes, but i dont think that's the Ripper anyway.

[Fisherman]

To me the Ripper has also always been a lone wolf, Malcolm! I am not saying that the two did it in cooperation - I am suggesting that the first man dealt the 37 smaller stabs and left Tabram for dead. And it all went down in a house that had staircase galleries on the back of it, meaning that anybody in the block could have seen what happened. My suggestion is that the Ripper was a scavenger in the Tabram deed; he saw his chance, and stepped in when the first man had left, he cut at the abdomen, only to realize that Tabram was NOT dead (Killeen tells us that she lived throughout her ordeal), and when this became apparent, perhaps by Tabram giving off some sort of sound, he was spooked and realized that he could be spotted by a curious tenant in any second. So he fled, but he first ensured that Tabram would never be able to tell on him by stabbing her through the heart.
This scenario, I feel, also offers a very good explanation to why he set out by severing Nichols windpipe the next time over - he had decided never to risk being given away again, and slicing the neck offers the fastest insurance of silence and death.

This is a theory I presented in the November issue of Ripperologist - it has the drawback of calling for a scenario where two men use their knives against Tabram at different points of time. But it also offers the possibility to put the Ripper on the scene, acting in a kind of fashion that rings many a bell, plus it offers a nice explanation to why he came to set out by cutting necks in the other cases. And we DO know that two blades were used!

By the way, weīre agreed on Stride - that was NOT the Ripper in my wiew either!

The best, Malcolm!
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

I’ve followed this thread from the start. And while it has been most interesting discussion. Aren’t the basic facts the same?

Martha could possibly have been a Ripper victim. Could possible NOT have been a ripper victim. Could possibly have been attacked by two people or by two separate people at different times. She could possibly have been strangled. Could possibly have been attacked by a different serial killer other than Jack.

150 posts and I think we must accept the realms of possibility as we have very little information to go on in comparison to the other C5. If one accepts the term C5 at all.

That said whether Martha was or wasn’t a Ripper victim makes little difference to the candidacy of most of the leading suspects. It’s largely down to opinion and how each of us individually view’s the killer.

In my mind there is little doubt that Martha was a Ripper victim. However the arguments against are sound and interesting.

Surely at some point we each have to go with our gut reaction/instinct. Unless anyone has some new over looked observation. For me the fact that Martha was stabbed through her clothes is the clincher.

Pirate

[Shelley]

i never said Tabram was strangled...because she wasn't, but ``old shakespear `` was.....Tabram was stabbed to death, i think you're confusing me with another poster, never mind.

you say that there are differences in M.O, but it's more like a totally different M.O..period, this looks like a couple of street killers in a rage!

the only way this can be JTR, is if he was on a steep learning curve, if not it's someone else.

Malcom X,
I wasn't referring to you as quoting miss information, i was using the quote you printed in your post from Chava, it is Chava that is miss informed, it was indeed Chapman that was reported to have a swollen tongue, not Tabram. I'm not speaking with Chava . And now i see that she has mis informed with saying that Tabram had a swollen tongue, and Tabram did not.
And for what it is worth yes, i agree with you Tabram's killing looked like a rage to me. I believe that Tabram was also killed in a frenzy.

[Shelley]

What i see people forget here when they speak of learning curves, and i might add they can only form an opinion from MO, the learning curves from a killer in the case with Tabram, then 3 weeks with Nicholls?, is that they forget a signature cannot be a learning curve in space of three weeks and change, no learning curve is neccessary from stabbing/cutting to that of slashing and an attempt at removing an organ, with Chapman only 1 week later after Nicholls organs were successfully removed for this killers signature, i know of no leading authority in the subject of ripperology that says a different hand was at work with Nicholls than Chapman. At the same time i believe that the killer of some of the canocial 5 must have practiced on animals somewhere, or even some employment with dead bodies along the way, not neccessarily a Doctor, or a soldier.

[Shelley]

Pirate Jack
In my mind there is little doubt that Martha was a Ripper victim. However the arguments against are sound and interesting.
Surely at some point we each have to go with our gut reaction/instinct. Unless anyone has some new over looked observation. For me the fact that Martha was stabbed through her clothes is the clincher.

And just how do you propose that stabbing slashing or cutting through clothes is the clincher for the ripper's hallmark of his victim? For her not to be a ripper victim, he should have stripped her bare of all clothing?.
Tabram was a prostitute ( possibly part time) and those in the canocial list were engaging in prostitution as well, and YES Emma Smith was also attacked by a gang with her clothes on. The only time to my knowledge will a prostitute take off some clothing possibly is if she is sharing a bed for the night.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

Just to recap. The suggestion that martha was strangled, can only be drawn from the photo. As some have pointed out she could have just looked like this naturally, it is possible. However her face does look swollen to me. Go back and look at the photo.

As for the clothing. Martha was the only victim stabbed through her clothing unless you include Ada Wilson. After Martha jack changed his MO. Raising the clothing and cutting under the dress or to other 'softer' parts of the anatomy. Although apparently he cut away Nichols Stays.

So for me the different use of the knife at the Tabram murder is explained by stabbing through clothing which requires by necessity a different approach to the later attacks. The small cut to the abdomen also suggests that towards the end of the attack he also raised Marthas skirt...a learning curve/progressing MO.

and dont forget that MJK did exactly that..she took her clothes off.

However he did not attempt to cut Nichols , Chapman, Stride or Eddowes through their clothing. Probably because he learned at the Tabram attack its very tiering.

Pirate

[Ben]

they forget a signature cannot be a learning curve in space of three weeks

Who says?

[Jeff Leahy]

Who says?

Exactly Ben. The learning curve happens with each attack. You learn by experience. It has nothing to do with time.

All best

Pirate

[Shelley]

Fisherman ;To me the Ripper has also always been a lone wolf, Malcolm! I am not saying that the two did it in cooperation - I am suggesting that the first man dealt the 37 smaller stabs and left Tabram for dead. And it all went down in a house that had staircase galleries on the back of it

But you attribute a 2nd killer on the scene by chance just by 2 particular wounds, which can be knocked down to perhaps 1 wound to JTR when it could have been a LIKE MIND of one from the Whitechapel gang that Killed Emma Smith. Therefore leaving only 1 wound of a stab to the heart as JTR the killer? JTR din't go for the heart in Nicholls, Chapman or Eddowes.

.My suggestion is that the Ripper was a scavenger in the Tabram deed; he saw his chance, and stepped in when the first man had left, he cut at the abdomen, only to realize that Tabram was NOT dead (Killeen tells us that she lived throughout her ordeal), and when this became apparent, perhaps by Tabram giving off some sort of sound, he was spooked and realized that he could be spotted by a curious tenant in any second. So he fled, but he first ensured that Tabram would never be able to tell on him by stabbing her through the heart.

Oh and this theory of scavenging you have fisherman, this 2nd killer as JTR you would propose that he would risk being caught for the other 37 stab wounds, also in the dark, as it is reported that all the lights were out that bank holiday, that he could tell the body on the ground was a woman too when passing by, if it had been a man that would have just been as well would it too? And the cuts to the abdomen? i have nothing on my notes to say that Tabram's lower half was targeted specifically & not noted by Killeen in his report, if any small cuts ever arose on Tabram's body that is easily made in such a frenzied attack of at least 37 wounds, and also that of 39 wounds.

This scenario, I feel, also offers a very good explanation to why he set out by severing Nichols windpipe the next time over - he had decided never to risk being given away again, and slicing the neck offers the fastest insurance of silence and death.

Not when you have Deep cutting of the throat that almost severes the head, as was the trademark of such a killer as JTR.

This is a theory I presented in the November issue of Ripperologist - it has the drawback of calling for a scenario where two men use their knives against Tabram at different points of time. But it also offers the possibility to put the Ripper on the scene, acting in a kind of fashion that rings many a bell, plus it offers a nice explanation to why he came to set out by cutting necks in the other cases. And we DO know that two blades were used!

No it isn't by any means a good explaination for the deep-cutting of throats on the canocial list Fisherman, and with 1 wound that i can axe your theory down to,and tie exactly this same wound to a whitechapel gang that attacked Emma Smith no it doesn't tie in with a scavanger theme and put the Ripper at the scene at all. Dr Killeen's report said that there were wounds to Tabram that said a Dagger or an ordinary pen-knife, and for the wound on the sternum a different weapon such as a bayonet, the bayonet i take is that the police asked the Doctor if a bayonet could have been used. We have to use evidence, not mere theory alone, and common sense with some realism . It could easily have been two weapons carried by one killer period.

Cheers
Shelley

[Fisherman]

Shelley writes:

"JTR didn't go for the heart in Nicholls, Chapman or Eddowes."

That, Shelly, is my point, sort of - he would have learn from Tabram that there was good sense in cutting off the windpipe before setting about the eviscerations.

"Oh and this theory of scavenging you have fisherman, this 2nd killer as JTR you would propose that he would risk being caught for the other 37 stab wounds, also in the dark, as it is reported that all the lights were out that bank holiday, that he could tell the body on the ground was a woman too when passing by, if it had been a man that would have just been as well would it too? And the cuts to the abdomen? i have nothing on my notes to say that Tabram's lower half was targeted specifically & not noted by Killeen in his report, if any small cuts ever arose on Tabram's body that is easily made in such a frenzied attack of at least 37 wounds, and also that of 39 wounds"

To begin with, neither you nor me were there, Shelley, and so we canīt tell exactly WHERE the couple was. If they were out on the gallery at some stage, there may have been ambient lighting enough for anybody to see what was going on. As for the cut it was said that it was situated in the lower part of the body, and keeping in mind that all wounds seem to have been inflicted in Tabrams front, that would place the cut down below.

"Not when you have have deep cutting with the throat that almost severes the head, as was the trademark of such a killer as JTR."

With a heavy, very sharp knife it does not take very much of an effort to cut deep, Shelly. And there is nothing saying that he did not like the feeling of it once he began. What I am saying is that it could well have been initiated by the practical need to silence and kill, nothing more.

"No it isn't by any means a good explaination for the deep-cutting of throats on the canocial list Fisherman, and with 1 wound that i can axe your theory down to, no it doesn't tie in with a scavanger theme and put the Ripper at the scene at all. Dr Killen's report said that there were wounds to Tabram that said a Dagger or an ordinary pen-knife, and for the wound on the sternum a different weapon such as a bayonet, the bayonet i take is that the police asked the Doctor if a bayonet could have been used. We have to use evidence, not mere theory alone. It could easily have been two weapons carried by one killer period"

Period? It could easily have been two killers, period.
And keep in mind that the bayonet suggestion seems very much to have been something that was thrown forward by other people than Killeen - he spoke of a sturdy weapon like a dagger, and that would have prompted the coroner to take an active interest in the fact that Tabram had been seen with a soldier before she died. But that does in no way make the weapon that pierced her heart a bayonet - we only know it was a powerful blade.

As for your suggestion to use the evidence, that is in fact exactly what I am doing. I am asking myself "If this was Jack, then how can he be put on the scene, using the evidence we have?", and I find that the scavenger theory offers a very good scenario in which Jack may have been the perpetrator. It is in no way at all using "theory alone", Shelley - it is using all the evidence and finding that nothing of it swears against the scenario I propose.
That is not saying that it must be correct - but it IS saying that it tallies with the evidence. Please respect that.

The best,
Fisherman