Ripper Victim?

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Ben! IŽll listen in as soon as I can find the time.

The best,
Fisherman

[Shelley]

As Annie is the quintessential Ripper victim, so is Polly the quintessential "learning curve" victim for Annies killer.

Martha was killed close to the Ripper crimes...thats all they have in common.

Bets regards

Well said Michael! Just the point here needed, even as a reminder!

P.S Although i am inclined to think that JTR was disturbed in his acts with Polly Nicholls.

[Ben]

Try this, Fish:

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=88

If I recall, the Tabram stuff was pretty early on.

Best regards,
Ben

Noones suggesting the pattern was Martha to Annie. It was Martha to mary to Annie. Stride-disturbed. Eddows to MJK.

In all these murders apart from Stride we see change and development of MO.

As explained. Martha's MO was different because Jack targeted the body through clothing. Ripping would have been useless as the blade would not enter the body but be deflected.

So he Stabbed. He got tierd. He raised the dress discovers how to Rip.

He is covered in blood. Martha probably awoke or struggled.

Jack changed his MO through necessity and learning. Its that simple.

All the best Pirate.

Im not sure you got the gist of what Im saying based on the above. Jack the Ripper killed to facilitate the acts for which he killed in the first place,...Martha was murdered.

The Ripper killed Annie, almost for sure...right? Ok
The murder that immediately precedes hers is almost the same MO... only lacking organ theft. Its is also almost literally on the street. They are very similar and likely committed by one man. So far so good?

That killer had his knowledge at the time of Marthas murder, a... reasonable logical assumption.

Now explain to me what Annies killer learned from killing Martha.....aside from the fact that he learned he couldnt just stab people to death? He knew how to extract organs when Martha was killed......you cannot in any real sense suggest that he kills like a primitive emotional animal when he knew a much better way to kill already.

Marthas killer didnt want to take abdominal organs, or cut a throat, or handle viscera, he wanted to stab her till he was tired and she was dead.

Nothing could be learned from that that we see applied in any form in latter kills.

If you want progression...and with a much more sound premise that the killer knew how to do the things he does before he even starts killing...then you have Polly, Annie and Kate. Pre-existing knowledge used with all 3, pre-existing techniques, each successive murder slightly more invasive and with more activity by the killer each kill.

By ignoring the specificity shown in those 3 deaths that we can be fairly sure were committed by one man, you modify the suspect. And for me, theres no evidence at all that even remotely supports an idea that Jack the Ripper killed Martha right through to Mary Kelly...that he would stab to death, cut to pieces, or slice once.

Thats a streak of murders that are not alike.

I think Jacks murders were very alike myself.

All the best

[Shelley]

With respect to you and Ben on this issue, there is nothing that Martha's killer could have "learned" that would explain the appearance of a fully developed MO in 3 weeks, and one that changes forever with respect to stabbing victims.

Exactly Perrymason, before we know it will will we attributing all 17 Victims of Victorian London to JTR! On that note. But still understanding Fishermans theory of the neck areas, does not mean that the MO learning is in anyway exact to any other killers matched in history or more modern times. that's why i incline to disagree.

[Ben]

With respect to you and Ben on this issue, there is nothing that Martha's killer could have "learned" that would explain the appearance of a fully developed MO in 3 weeks

Why not, Mike?

The mental process only needs to go; "Right, I've done stabbing, and it was moderately satisfying. Let's try slashing and cutting this time and see if that's even more satisfying". Far from requiring three weeks to dream up, that mental process doesn't even require five minutes. He simply improves on his latest offence by exploring and discovering. If he decided he particularly likes something, he'll stick with it. I wouldn't agree that killing was the only goal in the Tabram murder. It was just a less advanced form of mutilation, to my mind. Repeatedly puncturing a lifeless corpse was certainly beyond the minimum requirements to ensure death.

I cannot see any logical argument that would enable a primitive, multi-bladed emotional killer like Marthas to somehow become a sophisticated organ removal murderer in one month...with only a murder like Pollys in between

That's really nothing, Mike, compared to other serial killers who often used entirely different weapons within a much shorter time frame, despite the fact that they are equally capable of consistency in their murders when they want to be.

There is every reason to believe that Jacks ease with the acts performed in the backyard at Hanbury are due to some experience with organs, bodies, or the conversion of animals to food, he knew a bit of cutting and some anatomical knowledge

I don't agree, Mike.

I think there's much better reason to believe that he was a rank amateur who simply learned on the job. It hardly screams professional to remove only a portion of a bladder, and a failed attempt to seperate the spinal column points in the opposite direction to someone with medical or butchery skills. Serial killers aren't ready-made products. Most of the learning doesn't take place in the equivalent of a classroom but rather as a result of his criminal activity. The learn, discover, and progress on the job.

He learned nothing of organ extraction, accessing organs, or even using a knife to cut with Martha Tabram....yet he had all that knowledge in one months time

I'd dispute that any of Nichols' and Chapman's injuries evinced any more "knowledge" than that of a serial killer with some experience of using knives on prostitutes who was simply progressing to the next grisly stage. Again, we don't want to elevate Jack to the status of something amazingly unique and "different" to the vast majority of serial killers. There's really nothing in the Tabram-to-Chapman phase that can't be explained away very plausibly on the grounds that he was a pretty bog-standard serial killer who learned on the job, rather than being a ready-formed, ready-made product from the outset.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"Martha was killed close to the Ripper crimes...thats all they have in common."

Apart from them all being prostitutes, them all being killed by knife, them all having a cut to the lower body, them all being killed at weekends, them all being killed in secluded spots, them all dying silently or almost silently, them all being in their forties (Kelly excepted), them all being lodgers (except Kelly) and them all being well aquainted with booze and them all dying at nighttime or in the early morning you would be right here!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"The odds for your theory just seem to me very high."

Indeed they are, Jeff - but when you take the leap you find that it all falls in place, and that interests me a lot!

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"I don't know if you've had an opportunity to listen to the R. Michael Gordon podcast, but he seems to share your view on the "scavenger" theory."

I have not, Ben - I thought I was the only person on Planet Earth subscribing to these thoughts. It sometimes seems so, at least. Is there any way I can access Gordons ideas??

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

So... now explain to me why I should accept a murder that is clearly unlike a "ripping"....and when for all practical purposes, the man that kills Annie had his knowledge already when Martha is killed?

Best regards Pirate, Ben.

Noones suggesting the pattern was Martha to Annie. It was Martha to mary to Annie. Stride-disturbed. Eddows to MJK.

In all these murders apart from Stride we see change and development of MO.

As explained. Martha's MO was different because Jack targeted the body through clothing. Ripping would have been useless as the blade would not enter the body but be deflected.

So he Stabbed. He got tierd. He raised the dress discovers how to Rip.

He is covered in blood. Martha probably awoke or struggled.

Jack changed his MO through necessity and learning. Its that simple.

All the best Pirate.

As Annie is the quintessential Ripper victim, so is Polly the quintessential "learning curve" victim for Annies killer.

Martha was killed close to the Ripper crimes...thats all they have in common.

Bets regards

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

All best

Pirate

With respect to you and Ben on this issue, there is nothing that Martha's killer could have "learned" that would explain the appearance of a fully developed MO in 3 weeks, and one that changes forever with respect to stabbing victims.

Without Liz Stride, Polly through Kate are examples of Jack the Rippers MO. How he subdues, when he uses a knife at all, and what the ultimate objective of killing someone is for him. Because clearly, Jack doesnt merely kill. Jack kills to mutilate. Killing is just one step of his attack....the middle one.

With Martha or Liz Stride, murder is the goal unto itself. Just making the person dead.

I cannot see any logical argument that would enable a primitive, multi-bladed emotional killer like Marthas to somehow become a sophisticated organ removal murderer in one month...with only a murder like Pollys in between...her murder is clearly easier to associate with Annies killer than Martha would be anyway.

There is every reason to believe that Jacks ease with the acts performed in the backyard at Hanbury are due to some experience with organs, bodies, or the conversion of animals to food, he knew a bit of cutting and some anatomical knowledge......more than is reasonably assumed learned in 3 weeks.

Based on that sound footing, it leads to a conclusion that when Martha Tabram was murdered, Annie Chapmans killer was capable of doing what he did to Annie already. Nothing in the Tabram murder would have taught him anything about those acts.

So... now explain to me why I should accept a murder that is clearly unlike a "ripping"....and when for all practical purposes, the man that kills Annie had his knowledge already when Martha is killed?

He learned nothing of organ extraction, accessing organs, or even using a knife to cut with Martha Tabram....yet he had all that knowledge in one months time. I think the time has come to revise the approach, that he "learned" what he needed for Annie some time before the murder of Martha and the Ripper crimes. Which means he likely learned from hands on experience...lacking other significantly suggestive earlier murders he may also have committed to link him with.

He cut right through skin to the internal organs of some formerly living animal in some fashion before the murders..... in either work or play, as a hunter dressing his kills maybe.

But the Jack that kills Annie Chapman could have learned nothing about what he does from killing Martha. Not even how to cut a throat.

Best regards Pirate, Ben.

[Ben]

Interesting points, Fish.

I agree wholeheartedly that Tabram's body was subjected to a cut as well as stabs.

I don't know if you've had an opportunity to listen to the R. Michael Gordon podcast, but he seems to share your view on the "scavenger" theory.

All the best,
Ben

[Shelley]

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

Yes and MJK was at home and looked retired on her own bed anyway. And as you say in your above post, it is clear with the clothing that things are different with Tabram to that with the other caniocal 4.

[Jeff Leahy]

Noone, well at least me fish old man, is disputing that your theory doesnt fit the known facts. It is Possible.

The question I would ask is "Is it probable?"

Surely the simplest solutions are man with two knives?

or two killers at same time?

The odds for your theory just seem to me very high.

Pirate