Ripper Victim?

[Jeff Leahy]

Bugger i've just been to bed and had to get up and write this Garath!

But think about it. You discuss the cuts to Eddowes face in detail. It is an escalation from Nichol's and Chapman..But are there any cuts to the body?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????

No there is not. Only cuts to the soft area Jack finds by raising the skirt. No knife wounds to the breast...yet clearly we find knife wounds to MJK breasts..

So why not attack Nichols or Chapmans or Eddows Breasts????

Well perhaps because he has already learned that it is next to impossible to SLASH a victorian corset with a knife..

and where does he learn that???

answers on a post card.....good night every one sweet dreams

Pirate

[Sox]

Well actually, in the list of what Tabram was wearing at the time of her death there is no mention of a corset, not that this means she did not have one on of course, but it is speculative at best.

An important thing to consider when speculating as to wether or not Tabram was a Ripper victim is this: Did he change his method or.....did he change his weapon?

It is possible that when attacking poor Martha he did use a dagger and perhaps, just perhaps, he did not like the results, and so he changed to a weapon that would give him what he needed? Her post mortem could support this theory because it would seem that even in this one attack, more than one weapon was used.

[Shelley]

However you view this Shelley the majority of the Stabs are to the upper part of the body wear the victim is well protected by Victorian corset...

In the subsequent attacks Jack transfers his attention to the soft areas by cutting throats and lifting skirts...his slashing works here

It does NOT work against Tabram, hence the STABS

Pirate

It makes no difference Pirate Jack, if Tabram and Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes wore a victorian corset. Also Chapman & Eddowes were the only ones to wear a victorian type corset, labelled a bodice, Tabram is not listed as wearing a bodice at the time.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Re Jeff's thoughtful point on not being able to "rip" effectively through clothing... Tabram's killer lifted up her skirts, but still didn't bother ripping her; neither did he slash her (bare) throat.
Clearly, this guy was intent on stabbing, almost to the exclusion of anything else, and his focus was emphatically on the upper half of the body. This despite the fact that Tabram's belly was exposed, and quite possibly remained exposed throughout his onslaught on her neck, chest and stomach."

You may be jumping the gun here, Sam - to begin with, we may not be speaking of "this guy" but instead of "these guys". And stating that Tabrams belly was exposed as she was stabbed remains a guess, nothing else. There is also the possibility that her belly was covered neatly by Tabrams clothes throughout the flurry of 37 stabs to - as you put it - her upper body, and that the stabber left her in that fashion.
This would mean that somebody else added the elements of "sexualization" if you like: lifted her skirts, parted her legs - and added the cut to the lower abdomen first, and the stab through the heart as a second detail.

Since - just like Jeff says - it is hard to cut a body through clothing (the heavier the cloth, the harder, actually), logic tells us that if the wound to the lower abdomen WAS a cut, it was in all probability inflicted on bare skin, and not through clothing. And if I understand you correctly, Sam, we need perhaps not worry about a scenario where that wound was inflicted through her clothes - you seem to champion a scenario where Tabram had voluntarily laid down on the (probably) dirty landing, accomodating a potential client by lifting her skirts, only to be attacked with a knife.

I have always held the wiew that she would NOT lie down on that landing - she would propose standing-up sex, as would have been the normal way to go about it. And if so, even if she had pulled her skirts up standing, they would have dropped down as she was attacked, and then we must accept that the attacker for some reason lifted them once again as she lay on the ground, for no apparent reason; there were no traces of "connection" as per Killeen, and the deed seems not to have had a sexual focus; it was a rain of stabs directed to random spots on her upper body - and, of course, there was the "skidding stab" that was directed to another spot altogether, a stab that he added to all the ones that seemingly went through her clothes, a stab that in no way is connected to the others, not in location and not in appearance.

I will keep repeating that the only way to make it all work logically, is to accept that there were two men involved. Number one was infuriated with Tabram, and he threw her to that dirty floor on which she would not willingly have conscented to lie down, knocking her on the head in the process. After that he chopped away at her in a fury. There were no sexual elements involved, just a will to annihilate, to kill.
The other man, though, was all about a sexuality gone wrong. He found a typical victim of a multiple, enraged stabbing lying on the landing, and he threw her clothing up over her belly, exposing the lower abdomen, and he started cutting into it (which could be done since there were no clothes hindering it), but was spooked by the fact that she was still alive. She cries out or moans, he panicks and delivers the coup-de-grace, providing us with the knowledge that he was using a different, sturdier weapon than the stabber.

Prostitutes did not go down on their backs on dirty concrete landings to accomodate their clients in Whitechapel of -88.
Frenzied stabbers do not swop weapons in the midst of their onslaughts. Nor do they normally mix elements of suggested sexuality into their deeds.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:
"Killean testemony is next to useless unless we know whether or not he examined the body naked or in the clothes she was attacked in..."

He examined her on the landing, plus he conducted the post-mortem, so I would say a little bit of both, or to be honest, a LOT of both.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

I've just read the last few pages with a lot of interest but I haven't read anything that makes me change my opinion. I agree with many of you on many points. Killeen says 2 different weapons. He was there. He saw her. He autopsied her. There is nowhere else to turn to to refute his opinion.Two different weapons.

One man? No, again I don't think so. 2 men. Most likely soldiers. You've got Pearly Poll and the soldier who said he was waiting for his friend who'd gone up an alley/lane with a girl. There were soldiers obviously in the area and the pros were soliciting.

Jack in the shadows waiting to strike? It's a very interesting theory and it has as much right as any other to be proposed. I don't buy it but that's JMO.
Jack was a soloist. A star. He had to start somewhere yes but I'm not convinced it was in George Yard.

Again I will say. If Jack hadn't started 3 weeks after Tabram no-one would link the murders. If Tabram was killed in another town Jack wouldn't be linked to the murders.

Jack the murderer of Nicholls and Chapman, IMO, is not the murderer of Tabram. Nicholl's murderer choke/strangle throat slash, then the ripping with one weapon. Tabram stabbed. No organs taken.

[Fisherman]

NTS writes:
"Jack in the shadows waiting to strike? It's a very interesting theory and it has as much right as any other to be proposed. I don't buy it but that's JMO.
Jack was a soloist. A star. He had to start somewhere yes but I'm not convinced it was in George Yard."

Well, NTS, we can easily see that it seems it was not his MO in the following strikes. But I think it must be realized that Jack would have been an opportunist, and an opportunist with an inner urge to eviscerate is a catastrophy waiting to happen. My suggestion involves the clear possibility that he was a man who had suppressed the urge for some time, and when he was faced with the Tabram opportunity he could not resist it. And after that, the burning fuse had hit the bomb, and there was no way staying a scavenger would provide him with enough opportunities. He was forced to make it happen himself. The taboo of killing was taken care of in George Yard, he had stepped over the line and so the hunt was on. Add to this that the fact that he had been forced to abort the job would have heightened his appetite.

"Tabram stabbed. No organs taken."

Stabbed by ANOTHER man though! And Jack took no organs from Nicholls either - in my wiew that probably owes to him beeing spooked or interrupted once more. It was not until Chapman that he returned home fully satisfied, I believe.

The best, NTS!
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

Hey man. We agree on lots of things. I think you're right on Nicholls. It was Jack's intention to take a trophy IMO but he was interrupted. Spooked? Maybe. This is off topic so I'm sorry but I think Jack would have been so high after the kill if it had been one man only he might have been prepared to defend his get. Anyway, off topic.

I do understand how you're trying to posit Tabram in as a Jack trial run. But let's say the other guy stabs her with the bayonet. OK. Then Jack comes in with a pen knife (correct me if I'm wrong) and goes for it. Or turn this around. The other guy stabs her 38 times then Jack comes in with a bayonet or whatever was used.

Why 3 weeks later does he evolve into a chokehold/strangle then throat slash Jack, avoiding as much blood as he could? Rip, slash then Chapman. To me, there's no connection between Tabram and Jack's gets. Besides the fact they were all pros, all murdered in the same general area, all murdered within the same general timeframe and by same type of knife.

Anyway, I enjoy reading your posts. And thanks for welcoming a newbie.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ah that’s interesting. On the whole I agree with the Fisherman on this. However I don’t see the need for two attackers.

As Fisherman says prostitutes don’t lay down for sex in 1888. However I think Marta Was strangled lowered to the floor and stabbed through her clothing….

I think Jack did this as STABBING at this point is how necessity had made his attacks RE: Wilson and Millwood.

I don’t think we should get to hung up on the corset. Martha was a bag lady who wore all the clothes she owned, and as Fisherman says this would be quite difficult to cut with a knife. The style was a tight bodice of some kind around the rib cage.

I think we are talking about a young man with a serious mental condition. At some point during the Stabbing frenzy he stopped, probably from exhaustion. He raised her skirts and made the first SLASH with his knife….

I think at that moment JtR was born/created. But there is no need to take trophies at this point, he will think and fantisize about this later.

What we have, with the exclusion of Stride (probable interruption) is natural progression. He gives up the STABS to body and concentrates on newly discovered pleasures with his knife.

At the Nichols attack we have no STABS to body but deep cuts to the abdomen a natural progression from the first cut at the Tabram murder. No trophies.

I simply find the chances of Jack hanging around and discovering the body of Martha, as to far fetched and stretching the odds a little. Far easier to have the same knife used in two different ways because of necessity.

Pirate

[Fisherman]

NTS writes:

"But let's say the other guy stabs her with the bayonet. OK. Then Jack comes in with a pen knife (correct me if I'm wrong) and goes for it. Or turn this around. The other guy stabs her 38 times then Jack comes in with a bayonet or whatever was used."

It´s the latter, NTS (but it´s "only" 37 "pen-knife" stabs); the kill-off stab to the heart would have been the last wound she received, since she lived thorugh the rest, and that stab was delivered by the sturdier weapon.

The explanation for the Tabram deed not being a copy of the Nichols-, Chapman- and Eddowes deeds, lies in the fact that it was not a premeditated deed on behalf of Jack - he was a complete freshman when it came to killing, he had not yet realized that there would be a need for silencing his victims before cutting them down below and he had no empirical knowledge of how to cut a woman open. He took over a woman he had not chosen at a site that he had to accustom to as best as he could, and he probably spent very little time on the landing; lifting the skirts, cutting the abdomen, panicking as she cried out - it would have been a matter of perhaps only seconds. Also consider the normal development of a serial killer, going from an uncertain newbie at his first kill, and arriving as somebody who feels almost god-like when he has perfected his MO, arrogantly sure that he cannot be caught.

To me, Tabram represents the perfect predecessor to Nicholls: The hesitating cut to the abdomen, probably interrupted, the ignorance about the practicality of silencing his victims, the focused agenda, lifting the skirts and concentrating on the reproductive areas ...

The best, NTS!
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

Weren't they all bag ladies? Except for Kelly who had a room but who knows how long before she joins the rest? Myself, I think Jack would have dealt with whatever clothes were in his way in whatever way he could to get at the body.

2 weapons, 2 men. It just makes sense IMO. Like I said, I don't think Jack was hanging around but that's JMO. Which was the first cut on Tabram? I'd like to think the one that pierced her heart but perhaps I'm giving Jack a much more altruistic intention than he should receive. But then...
He strangles/chokeholds. Then slashes. Then mutilates.

Not because he doesn't want to cause pain. What they feel is immaterial.

I'm off topic again so I'll stop.

Tabram no as a Jack get but I enjoy reading all the points of view. Sorry FM. I was posting when you were. You're right about the wounds. Killeen did say he thought they were delivered while she was alive. So, OK. You have one guy stabbing her 37 whatever times with a pen knife then someone else comes along and finishes her off. I agree with you about 2 different killers and 2 different men. No problems.

But Jack? I just don't see (and I've tried) to place her as Jack's trial run. Jack worked alone. He strangled then slashed. Then ripped. Not stabbed. Ripped.

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"Ah that’s interesting. On the whole I agree with the Fisherman on this. However I don’t see the need for two attackers."

That´s fine by me, Jeff. I´m not the one left with the obstacle of explaining the swopping of blades, just as I do not have to come up with an explanation as to why the sole attacker would have turned from an unfocused, frenzied killer with the only agenda of destroying and killing, to a focused, sexually aroused man with an agenda of cutting into the abdominal area.

"I simply find the chances of Jack hanging around and discovering the body of Martha, as to far fetched and stretching the odds a little."

Have I heard that before? Yes, I have! And I freely admit that there is a chance element involved. But since that chance element effectively takes care of each and every detail, giving it meaning and logic and supplying us with a very viable suggestion as to how and why the Ripper created the MO he was to follow from Nicholls and onwards, I think it is a stretch that logic dictates we make. Moreover, since I champion Joe Fleming as her killer, and since it all went down in the blocj adjacent to where we KNOW he lived, and since a serial killer often sets out by a strike very close to his own quarters, I am more than willing to champion this scenario of mine, Jeff.

Offering the suggestion that it is far-fetched is all good and well - but I would much prefer some sort of evidence pointing away from the solution I am outlining!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

NTS asks:

"Which was the first cut on Tabram? I'd think the one that pierced her heart "

Nope. That would have killed her, and Killeen tells us that she lived throughout the stabbing, as evinced by the amounts of blood. The stab to the heart was the LAST stab.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

Hey quote me by all means. But quote me right. I said, 'I'd like to think the one that pierced her heart.'

[Fisherman]

NTS writes:

"Hey quote me by all means. But quote me right."

Hmmm. I wonder how that came about...? Sorry, NTS!
Anyways, it does not change the bottom line - the heart was the last, in all probability - no altruism on Jack´s behalf, I´m afraid!

The best,
Fisherman