Ripper Victim?

[Chava]

The picture suggests a somewhat engorged lower face, and her tongue can be clearly seen protruding slightly between the teeth. The PM does snot suggest she died of strangulation. However, what he does say is that the stab to the heart 'would have been sufficient to cause death'. Which it would. There is no inquest evidence of Eddowes, Stride or Nicholls having been strangled. although Llewellyn mentions some pre-mortem bruising around the neck that suggests something of that nature. Chapman, however, does show evidence of strangulation, although her heart was clearly beating when she was killed, because there is trace arterial splatter on the fence.

Chapman was the nearest to Tabram in terms of her physicality. She, also, was fairly heavy-set and short. This might mean nothing, but I find it interesting nevertheless.

If I were arguing against Tabram being a Ripper victim, I would point out that holding a lower arm like a bar across the throat would keep the victim upright and in a position to be stabbed. So I don't know if this possible evidence of strangulation is particularly useful. However I do believe, looking at the photograph, that she was partially strangled before she died. She died from a knife wound. And that a variation of this was present at

[Malcolm X]

My Question is...Do you have a problem with me mentioning The Whitechapel murderer?

All the Best Malcom

Shelley

why on earth would i have a problem with you mentioning the ripper, that's what we're here for..... my problem is that laughing smilie you added, that tells me you're laughing and talking down to me....please read your post again and then take a look at your smilie, because that has seriously annoyed me, but i'll get over it.

[Shelley]

What "experts" exactly have said that the MO does not change? Every "expert" I have ever read has said that MO can and does change, it is only the signature that does not. And even that, I'd argue with.

These are Good Points Ally, however there is a time frame with some methods of MO as with the Signature it is usually an extention/adaptions rather than actual changes and again that is a question of time frame.

[Shelley]

why on earth would i have a problem with you mentioning the ripper, that's what we're here for..... my problem is that laughing smilie you added, that tells me you're laughing and talking down to me....please read your post again and then take a look at your smilie, because that has seriously annoyed me, but i'll get over it.

Malcom x,
Sorry it wasn't intended to annoy No it wasn't purposely done that smilie...I seem to be getting addicted to them. However,I do not see any ' Goal post that you made mention of & i do see some nit picking that i didn't happen to mention Ripper as you made mention in posts. However, i am entiled to my say in posts and also speak of what i do know about, and definatley the same mind to me was not at work with Tabram as in JTR canocial's as others have mentioned as well.
Cheers
Shelley

[Ally]

No there isn't a question of time frame. If an element of MO doesn't work for the killer the first time around, he is perfectly capable of adapting his MO the next time around. He doesn't have to keep doing the same thing for ten months. We are not talking about an evolutionary adaptation but a behavioral one and a behavior can be adapted the first time the target behavior fails to deliver the anticipated reward.

[Malcolm X]

i quote

`` In TV thrillers and novels, the serial killer always leaves some sort of ghastly calling card at the scene of the crime. It's his "signature," a bit of evidence authorities use to tie together a string of murders.

Experts on serial murder say the fictional version has at least a grain of truth to it.

"They like to (leave signatures). They enjoy it. It's one of their favorable pastimes," said Bob Keppel, an expert on serial killers who once worked for the Washington Attorney General's Office.

"It's my belief that all serial killers leave a sign. It's also my belief that we don't find it all the time because of decomposition or because he doesn't want you to find it."

Keppel, who has written a book on the subject, "Signature Killers," limits his theory to crimes in which there is a sexual element.

But James Fox, an expert on serial murder in Boston, says the signature is "more common in fiction than in fact."

"Part of the modern mythology of serial killers is that they all have signatures: the way they pose a body or dress a body," said Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University. "It doesn't happen so much as people would believe. You can use it loosely to say he always uses the same weapon or sexually mutilates the body in the same way."
Some serial murders even use different methods to kill and prey on different types of victims, he said.

Ted Bundy was a serial killer who enjoyed sadism, but he didn't leave a signature, Fox said. "It was just basically rape and murder."

what would the Ripper's signature have been then, i'm miles off topic here.... but i see no obvious signature............it's not the mutilations, that's his M.O and he leaves nothing behind/ poses the body......... could his signature be the GSG?

[Malcolm X]

Malcom x,
Sorry it wasn't intended to annoy No it wasn't purposely done that smilie...I seem to be getting addicted to them. However,I do not see any ' Goal post that you made mention of & i do see some nit picking that i didn't happen to mention Ripper as you made mention in posts. However, i am entiled to my say in posts and also speak of what i do know about, and definatley the same mind to me was not at work with Tabram as in JTR canocial's as others have mentioned as well.
Cheers
Shelley

that's fine, i'm cool and i 85% agree with you with regards to Tabram

[Malcolm X]

No there isn't a question of time frame. If an element of MO doesn't work for the killer the first time around, he is perfectly capable of adapting his MO the next time around. He doesn't have to keep doing the same thing for ten months. We are not talking about an evolutionary adaptation but a behavioral one and a behavior can be adapted the first time the target behavior fails to deliver the anticipated reward.

yes exactly, this depends upon how intelligent he is, an adapting M.O is quite commonly mentioned on the web.... as is, a total switch; this is usually done to throw the police off his scent......

the Ripper shows a varying and adapting M.O.... but not necessarily Tabram, i mean from Eddowes to Kelly, TABRAM could be varying as well, but it's a hell of a long way off from JTR, and it's varying enormously in such a short period of time to his next murder.

i cant get closer to this, because research just now; tells me that the experts aren't sure either, especially over this ``Signature``

but they all say that the M.O evolves as the killer learns, this is fairly obvious, but the basic MO is not present in Tabram and a few weeks later is not enough time in my opinion to learn this much/ totally switch your M.O

for TABRUM to look like a JTR victim, she would need to be very similar to an Alice McKenzie..is it possible for the Ripper to have evolved this much.................no idea, doubtful

[Shelley]

Malcom X,

Thankyou....I can see that you have made posts with some very good information on them & ones i'm inclined to agree on too on some points.

I am having a bit of dabble with Bold lettering and smilies etc as i go & post on, plus my typing it getting a bit more quicker...It's good exercise. And through this Tabram thread, some very good arguments are put down. it was nice to see the distinction between Mo & Signature on posts. Yes, many posters have given good views and ones i have also learned from as well.

Thankyou all

All the Best
Shelley

[Shelley]

No there isn't a question of time frame. If an element of MO doesn't work for the killer the first time around, he is perfectly capable of adapting his MO the next time around. He doesn't have to keep doing the same thing for ten months. We are not talking about an evolutionary adaptation but a behavioral one and a behavior can be adapted the first time the target behavior fails to deliver the anticipated reward.

Yes, i agree Ally, exactly if an MO doesn't work the first time around the killer will use another method of MO. And yes, no evolutionary adaption was of relevance here. However there are time frames, that bit i can disagree on but with signatures rather than MO. But Very Good post.

[Ally]

but they all say that the M.O evolves as the killer learns, this is fairly obvious, but the basic MO is not present in Tabram and a few weeks later is not enough time in my opinion to learn this much/ totally switch your M.O

for TABRUM to look like a JTR victim, she would need to be very similar to an Alice McKenzie..is it possible for the Ripper to have evolved this much.................no idea, doubtful

What precisely would have had to have "been learned" ? If Jack killed Tabram, he stabs her 39 times and it fails to elicit the response in him he wants. He learned the first time he did it, that it didn't give him what he wanted. So next time he decides to do more exploration and less stabbing.

You are trying to limit MO to words that are a generalization. Learning can occur the first time something happens. It doesn't take a repeated episode to figure out that something didn't work. You don't have to do something ten times before you figure out it's just not working. Neither did Jack. There is nothing in the MO between Martha and Polly that rules Jack in or out.

You are attempting to establish an MO after the fact. In general the first victims of a serial killer do not look anything like the MO as the killer goes on and practices. Martha therefore, if she was the first victim of Jack could be chalked up to trial and error. People are more likely to rule out a later victim that doesn't fit profile than an earlier one, because earlier victims would be in the practicing stage. If Martha had come after Eddowes, I would rule her out, but as the first in what might be a series, she cannot be ruled out.

[Malcolm X]

What precisely would have had to have "been learned" ? If Jack killed Tabram, he stabs her 39 times and it fails to elicit the response in him he wants. He learned the first time he did it, that it didn't give him what he wanted. So next time he decides to do more exploration and less stabbing.

You are trying to limit MO to words that are a generalization. Learning can occur the first time something happens. It doesn't take a repeated episode to figure out that something didn't work. You don't have to do something ten times before you figure out it's just not working. Neither did Jack. There is nothing in the MO between Martha and Polly that rules Jack in or out.

You are attempting to establish an MO after the fact. In general the first victims of a serial killer do not look anything like the MO as the killer goes on and practices. Martha therefore, if she was the first victim of Jack could be chalked up to trial and error. People are more likely to rule out a later victim that doesn't fit profile than an earlier one, because earlier victims would be in the practicing stage. If Martha had come after Eddowes, I would rule her out, but as the first in what might be a series, she cannot be ruled out.

yes i agree, totally, this is why i cant give you a definite answer either way, because it depends on human nature/intelligence and neither can the experts, all i can do is give you my personal opinion.

[Shelley]

That is a very good point from Ally and an earlier post of mine i do recall saying the same thing, that The answer does not lie with the first victim, but the last victim...or rather later victim(s).However, it does not take an ingenious killer who wants to obtain organs according to his frame of mind ( or Ally's choice of description ' Behaviour ' to know that stabbing will not open up a body to aquire this. This is my point upon intention from signatures in regarding Tabram to Nicholls.And why i am inclined to rule out Tabram.

[Ally]

You are presuming that obtaining organs was part of his "signature" and that it was in fact the compelling reason he killed.

That is an assumption. The organs could have merely been a trophy that he wanted to have and nothing that he particularly needed to have. The fact that he didn't take the same organs in every kill lends itself to the idea that it wasn't a signature of Jacks.

Part of Ed Gein's "signature" was that he skinned his victims but he didn't do it with his first victims. This was something that developed later. So even signature doesn't necessarily show up in the initial kills as the killer works out his technique.

[Shelley]

You are presuming that obtaining organs was part of his "signature" and that it was in fact the compelling reason he killed.

That is an assumption. The organs could have merely been a trophy that he wanted to have and nothing that he particularly needed to have. The fact that he didn't take the same organs in every kill lends itself to the idea that it wasn't a signature of Jacks.

Part of Ed Gein's "signature" was that he skinned his victims but he didn't do it with his first victims. This was something that developed later. So even signature doesn't necessarily show up in the initial kills as the killer works out his technique.

Ally,
Also Trophy taking is an assumption too. Trophies have also been external items, either body parts or ' objects, belonging items that is of the victim '. I have yet to find a live victim with a killing due to extracted organs from the victim to be in all certainty a Trophy, the kill was neccessary to obtain organs. And in at least two cases wombs were taken if not also an attempt on a third. Signature is the actual cutting open the body....But it seems also evidently in the case of extracting an organ. And as for Ed Gein i'm glad you said Part of signature.