Ripper Victim?

[Shelley]

yes this killer went crazy, totally flipped his lid..........i for one dont see this as JTR at all, but you never know, Martha might have said something to him that seriously annoyed him and thus it looks like someone else..

she only has to say something like, ``clear off you weirdo`` and he could've simply let rip in a wild rage... dont forget JTR was almost definitely from the working class or lower working class, so the street thug could've been in him anyway...this isn't Sickert, maybrick or that idiot Tumblety, this is someone much more like W.Bury or J.Barnett

Malcom X,

With all due respect, i wouldn't have thought that a woman engaging in prostitution was about to say to a potential client ' Clear off you weirdo ' to spark a display of rage, theft probably yes. As sometimes those engaged in prostitution did steal from clients.

[Malcolm X]

Malcom X,

With all due respect, i wouldn't have thought that a woman engaging in prostitution was about to say to a potential client ' Clear off you weirdo ' to spark a display of rage, theft probably yes. As sometimes those engaged in prostitution did steal from clients.

it depends what he said to her in conversation doesn't it, because something similar must've happened if this killer was JTR....JTR must've lost his temper, if not i doubt it's him (i doubt it's him anyway)

i cant see any signs of neck wounds to Tabram though, i just checked on the victims list here

[Shelley]

it depends what he said to her in conversation doesn't it, because something similar must've happened if this killer was JTR....JTR must've lost his temper, if not i doubt it's him (i doubt it's him anyway)

i cant see any signs of neck wounds to Tabram though, i just checked on the victims list here

Malcom x,

No i don't think so, a woman engaging in prostitution will usually come accross some very weird comments, if also not darn right repulsive at times from some, she is interested in what will get her by in life via the neccessity and means of prostitution. Way back in the Victorian period, women were either wives, a daddies girl or a unfortunate. Those unlucky enough to have lost a husband through either separation, divorce or death usually almost left destitue into the bargain, turned to means of support within the bounds of prostitution.
So no, i do not think your comment has bearing on your explaination of why the killer would go beserk as Sam has put it, or my version of rage & frienzed. Tabram was killed by someone wanting to let of steam in the first place, or just had a short fuse because of some event i think more likely to be that she may have tried to steal from her killer.

I'm off to bed now. Goodnight.

[Malcolm X]

same here, i'm back to work.........
goodnight

[perrymason]

How in gods name can we get 160 pages on a question that none can provide a verifiable answer for?

We could have done this with one post...

Martha Tabram may or may not have been a victim of Jack the Ripper, she was not included in the Canonical Group, she would be the only Ripper victim that was stabbed to death without any further motives evident, the only one with 2 weapons evident....and she would be the only Canonical without a throat cut.

Its clear that the choice to tentatively or fully accept Martha Tabram as a Ripper victim lies with the individual. There is no test to prove or disprove either position.

There is essentially your belief that Jack the Ripper didnt always cut throats or kill to enable mutilations, or that he did. Im for a few killers in Whitechapel in 1888, not just Jack, and this murder lacks sophistication. I dont see Jack's hand in stabbings or Torso's. Annie Chapmans murder is a huge evolutionary leap up from a frenzied stabbing murder....I cant buy it.

Im already on record with the second position, so I will leave this discussion at that... cause theres nothing that Ive seen or heard that might change that view at this point in time. To each, his or her own.

My best regards all.

[Jeff Leahy]

How in gods name can we get 160 pages on a question that none can provide a verifiable answer for?

We could have done this with one post...

Martha Tabram may or may not have been a victim of Jack the Ripper, she was not included in the Canonical Group, she would be the only Ripper victim that was stabbed to death without any further motives evident, the only one with 2 weapons evident....and she would be the only Canonical without a throat cut.

Its clear that the choice to tentatively or fully accept Martha Tabram as a Ripepr victim lies with the individual. There is no test to prove or disprove either position.

There is essentially your belief that Jack the Ripper didnt always cut throats or kill to enable mutilations, or that he did. Im for a few killers in Whitechapel in 1888, not just Jack, and this murder lacks sophistication. I dont see Jack's hand in stabbings or Torso's. Annie Chapmans murder is a huge evolutionary leap up from a frenzied stabbing murder....I cant buy it.

Im already on record with the second position, so I will leave this discussion at that... cause theres nothing that Ive seen or heard that might change that view at this point in time. To each, his or her own.

My best regards all.

Indeed good night all

[Ben]

I would like to introduce you to Shelley. I think you two will be very happy together and have many long and productive and repetitive conversations

I would have been up for it, Ally, but she stuck me on "ignore", the crazy, mixed-up minx.

[Shelley]

How in gods name can we get 160 pages on a question that none can provide a verifiable answer for?

We could have done this with one post...

Martha Tabram may or may not have been a victim of Jack the Ripper, she was not included in the Canonical Group, she would be the only Ripper victim that was stabbed to death without any further motives evident, the only one with 2 weapons evident....and she would be the only Canonical without a throat cut.

Its clear that the choice to tentatively or fully accept Martha Tabram as a Ripper victim lies with the individual. There is no test to prove or disprove either position.

There is essentially your belief that Jack the Ripper didnt always cut throats or kill to enable mutilations, or that he did. Im for a few killers in Whitechapel in 1888, not just Jack, and this murder lacks sophistication. I dont see Jack's hand in stabbings or Torso's. Annie Chapmans murder is a huge evolutionary leap up from a frenzied stabbing murder....I cant buy it.

Im already on record with the second position, so I will leave this discussion at that... cause theres nothing that Ive seen or heard that might change that view at this point in time. To each, his or her own.

My best regards all.

Hi Michael,
Even so with the 160 pages of argument, discussion, smatters of humour, abusive commenting all here on this Tabram thread, is left to the individual to decide whether or not Tabram was to them a ripper victim or not. The simple fact remains that 1 Tabram was not ripped ( said that for the sake of saying it). 2. Is with all this talk on this thread in posts, posters have stated that Tabram had several stab wounds to her neck, yet when i ask where the Source of information stating for such wounding on Tabram's neck, no one comes up with an answer to that question. Is it possible then that some people have made up this story of Tabram recieving stabs to her neck? On Tabram's photo, there isn't anything i can see to resemble any stab wounding to her neck either.

Oh and by the way Ally couldn't understand an accurate explaination of a Victim ! By it's entire defintion, she also couldn't understand that whilst still a chosen Victim you are still alive until death has actually occurred and then rendered you a dead victim....I thought it was Funny that she couldn't read that one!

Cheers

Shelley

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Ah, but where did it begin? Exactly - at the lower body, 3 inches from where it ended. Where did Eddowes', Nichols', Kelly's and Chapman's begin? Exactly - closer to the upper abdomen, 15-20 inches from where it ended."

Hi Sam!

I can´t see why this should change my original point - that we are dealing with a wound that ought to be called a cut.
And, as you well know, when you ask where it began, I cannot answer that since I don´t really know. We only know that Killeen chose to speak of the lower body, and that is a large enough area to cause some confusion in this case. But admittedly, it would seem that it was not the beginning of the kind of ribcage-down wound we are dealing with in the following cases. Then again, if it was a wound situated over the reproductive organs - and it may well have been - and if it was intended as such a wound, displaying an interest in these organs, then I would say it narrows down the potential list of customers quite a bit.
And, of course, if the Tabram slaying involved Jack in the role of a scavenger, then it was not a premeditated thing on his behalf. I can easily envisage how he could have learned a few things from it, such as never to give the victim a chance to make any sounds, and the rationality that lies in opening up the belly in a very definite way instead of just cutting at a small area. Such insights and applications may perhaps have come with the learning and boldness gained from a more "unspecific" kill - like that of Tabram.

The best,
Fisherman

[Shelley]

Fisherman; Sam writes:

We only know that Killeen chose to speak of the lower body, and that is a large enough area to cause some confusion

The best,
Fisherman

pardon me please Fisherman, but where did Dr Killeen say that? My notes say that Dr Killeen covered only 21 of the 39 stab wounds and all were the upper body not lower body. I grant you the notes i go by do say 39 stab wounds to Tabram's body, however only 21 of those wounds has specification to where they are on Tabram's body. All these wounds tell me they are no where near the abdomen, the stomach yes, but that is the upper part, ' of the generalisation of the word abdomen ' to some people, and not in the area of a woman's private parts that's for sure.
This is confused? ' Yes! ' because even any mention of stab wounds to Tabram's neck are not noted by Dr Killeen with the notes i have.

Another poster has also said that the information that can be accessed as reference here on casebook ( apart from this thread & posters saying so) does not say this either.

And please no more crack-pot lunatic posters such as Ally self-proclaimed Queen who probably wears a tin-foil hat, her self-made crown...To which i am absolutley convinced that she may well have been looking in the mirror at the time in a dazed with confused state and made such reference on me!???? then shortly after morphed into her multi-personality issues of a self-proclaimed Doctor!!! No less. The Ignore button is good for 'out of the closet lunatics '. The only Queen i know is Elizabeth II. Crown head of Britain and Yes this Queen is Great with Diplomacy. And where is the place ' Mean '? i'm not great at Geography, but what country is this? Oh, think Lunacy it's obviously in her mind.
I don't know..........Only in America i guess!!!

[DVV]

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but i'm one poster that says there is differences in MO & Signature to that of Tabram & the canocial 4.

Hi Shelley,
Should you tell us more about significant differences in signature ?
(I've never denied there were differences in MO.)

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

... it's rather more typical of intercourse having taken place, Dave.

Hi Sam,

good joke!
But no traces of intercourse, according to our dear doctor, at least.
Martha's corpse was left in a position that can be compared with other victims - clothes lifted up as far as the belly, legs apart, etc.
Once again, that's not the ultimate proof that she must be considered canonical, but that's a relevant detail that can hardly be challenged.
Out of curiosity, Sam, can I ask you if you believe in the soldier suspect ?

Amitiés,
David

[Shelley]

Hi Shelley,
Should you tell us more about significant differences in signature ?
(I've never denied there were differences in MO.)

Amitiés,
David

DVV,
How about no wounding to Tabram's neck for a start? No one has come up with a credible source that says Tabram had this done! Dr Killeen stated wounding on Tabram's upper body.

[Shelley]

DVV;Hi Sam

,

good joke!
But no traces of intercourse, according to our dear doctor, at least.

How about this:

They didn't have DNA then to be looking at one particular sperm donor. So in short they wouldn't bother that much.
What a woman enganging in prostitution didn't have intercourse for a few pennies?

[Malcolm X]

DVV,
How about no wounding to Tabram's neck for a start? No one has come up with a credible source that says Tabram had this done! Dr Killeen stated wounding on Tabram's upper body.

hi
lack of wounds to the neck is a difference in M.O , signature is something very much harder to detect in a killer....... it's his calling card, his way of telling you that the killer is him, it's a ritual he goes through either with the victim, or close by at the murder scene, it can also be something he places on the victim or leaves close by.......i.e the ``Smiley killer``.... only about 15% of serial killers have a detectable signature, it's their fixed M.O that gives them away, this signatutre is very confusing to understand as it tends to melt into the M.O as well.

e.g lifting Martha's clothing out of the way is his M.O, it's not a signature......a signature is something left by the killer that tells you instantly that this is JTR.

the wounding to Tabram's neck didn't happen and i knew that anyway, but i did briefly check here on the victims list last night just in case i made a mistake....