Ripper Victim?

[perrymason]

A couple of years ago I took a seriously close look at Polly Nichols' murder. I had never read a discursive essay on her murder, so I figured I'd write one. It was published in Ripper Notes and can be found on the dissertations page here. Because hers was the murder immediately following Tabram I figured if they were by the same hand, we should see an indicator there. There really weren't any. The temperment of the two killers was in stark contrast. However, I still consider it possible that the Tabram murder was related to the Ripper crimes. It makes sense with certain suspects (or personalities) but not with others.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Nice unbiased offering Tom, and I concur on your conclusion.

Cheers TW

[perrymason]

I realized on re-reading that I neglected to be specific...I agree that there are no indications from Martha to Polly that one man committed both.

Too late to do it as an edit.

Cheers all

[Ben]

Firstly, "woefully minor" is a bit optimistic. The means of executing a stab versus a cut are completely different, as are the physical sensations experienced by the perpetrator of the deed.

Not really Gareth.

In order to slash, you need to insert the knife first in a stabbing manner.

Secondly, "Jack" did not transition to "stab/slashing" - no matter how often one repeats that phrase, it does not make it an accurate description of the subsequent murders.

It does insofar as we know that subsequent victims were stabbed, specifically Nichols and Eddowes, where "stabs" were specifically mentioned.

Either way, stabbing to slashing in a minor alternation in terms of what we know serial killer's are capable of. People are free to argue that they're "different" - fair enough. What they're not entitled to do is claim that a stabber can't also be a slasher. It's complete nonsense, and I'd venture a guess that you know that.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. Just wanted to comment on Nicole's excellent post. I too can understand why others would argue for Tabram's exclusion. The only thing that infuriates me is when people use such inappropriately strong language to rule her out, despite the exeprts in the field assuring us - with good reason -that such confident exclusions are completely unwarranted in light of modern knowledge.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"People are free to argue that they're "different" - fair enough. What they're not entitled to do is claim that a stabber can't also be a slasher. It's complete nonsense"

Technically, this is right. But then again, it is also technically wrong to rule out that a fierce slasher could turn to a cool poisoner.
If we have a guy who cleaves thirtysix female victims in halves with a chain-saw, we cannot conclude that a man found strangled in the street is not his work.
It all boils down to judging credibilities. And in this case, we have one man who stabs a woman thirtyseven or thirtyeight or perhaps even thirtynine times. We also have a man who cuts into his victims for evisceration purposes. They employ different methods of killing, though both use knives. And they both seem very much locked when it comes to their preferred manner of using a knife. The outcome of it all is that they are probably not one and the same - more speaks against it than for it.
That is not to rule out any possibility, just to point to a marked difference in choice of killing method.

I have formerly stated that Tabram is the perfect predecessor to Nichols and I stand by that, but it of course rests on my own scenario, where Jack only inflicts TWO wounds, the one to the lower abdomen - a cut - and the stab to the heart. If we are to see the stabber as the only man who attacked Tabram, I think the possibility that he evolved into the Ripper is at the very best a remote one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And they both seem very much locked when it comes to their preferred manner of using a knife. The outcome of it all is that they are probably not one and the same - more speaks against it than for it.

Not when we examine expert opinion on the topic, and historical precedent from other cases, Fish. Stabbing to stab/slashing is a ludicrously small change in comparison to knife-work to poisining or bombing. So no, it isn't a remote possibility to fathom that a stabber can mutate into a slasher - quite the reverse. There's no evidence that Tabram's killer was "locked" in stabbing mode, and unable to break from that mould. Tabram being the perfect predecessor to Nichols doesn't rest upon your scavenger theory being correct.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

But do we have any historical example of such a thing, Ben? A stabber who produces a flurry of dozens of stabs with seemingly no focus, and who thereafter, in a relatively short span of time, evolves into a cutting eviscerator with a very focused interest and a very "economical" distribution of wounds, so to speak.
It would not be reasonable to ask for a twin, anybody realizes that, but just how close can we get? Do you know?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

As I mentioned to the recently departed Shelley earlier in the thread, we have the excellent example of the Zodiac killer, who despite his obvious and consistent preference for shooting people in cars, was perfectly capable of surrendering the gun in favour of the knife in a very short space of time. That's a monster change in comparison to simply using the knife on a prostitute in a different way. Peter Kurten is another good comparison study. And no single expert in serial crime has ruled out Tabram. They know better from years of experience.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Not really Gareth. In order to slash, you need to insert the knife first in a stabbing manner.

You don't "need" to stab at all, Ben - you can push the tip of the blade in, with either delicate or moderate pressure. Stabbing is entirely optional, and arguably superfluous.

Besides, there's more to "ripping" ("slashing", strictly speaking, is making glancing contact by swishing the blade) than the initial impact - what happens subsequently counts, too. You emphatically don't need a "punching" action in order to cut long wounds in the flesh - it just wouldn't work - it requires controlled pressure in an horizontal direction, over a distance. Stabbing is an explosive act, where all the pressure is concentrated in one vertical thump or, in the case of Tabram, 38 (or 39) vertical thumps.

Stabbing and ripping are EMPHATICALLY different actions.

[Ben]

Different actions they may well be, Gareth, but whatever they are, they're certainly not an excuse for asserting that certain victims must have fallen victim to different killers, and we know from medical notes that subsequent victims (Nichols and Eddowes) that evidence of stabbing occured too.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Not when we examine expert opinion on the topic

No field of expertise has yet been invented that allows someone to become a world authority on the qualitative attributes of stabbing versus cutting, Ben.

Beware of psychobabble degrees.

[Fisherman]

These men, Ben, are admittedly good examples of killers who changed weapons inbetween strikes. One could add others, like Sutcliffe for example.

But they don´t make useful comparisons in this case, at least not to my mind. Kürten, a clear-cut sadist, is the one who seems the better comparison with Jack, since he killed out of urge, but it was not a focused urge, but a very experimental one.
As I am sure you know, he was unable to function sexually without adding violence, and that brought him from arson and decapitating swans and drinking their blood to killing people. What he craved was change - he kept looking for the best methods to heighten his own sensation, and he used knives, hammers, scissor, strangulation - everything he could think of - to travel further into depravation. His ultimate dream was to hear his own blood pouring down into the executioners bucket as he himself was decapitated.

What Kürten never was, was a man who was consistent in his manner of killing. There was never any recurrent detail. He had nothing that reminds us of the Rippers wish to open up the abdomen and eviscerate, repeated time and time again. Nor did the Ripper seek to inflict pain, as far as we can tell.
Therefore, though Kürten shows that serial killers may change killing methods, he is really not the stuff we should look for to find a viable comparison to the type of killer the Ripper was.

If we were to believe that the Ripper was something resembling Kürten, we should expect Nichols throat-cut and eviscerated and badly beaten, Chapman battered to death with a blunt object after having been tortured, Eddowes strangled and stabbed with a screwdriver all over the body and Kelly slowly burnt alive.
Your comparison rests to a significant degree on an acceptance that Tabram WAS a Ripper victim, and that we may therefore conclude that the Ripper varied his killing methods. But that is getting ahead of ourselves!
The only guy we have lined up is a very unKürtenish killer who shows a remarkable reluctance to leave his two favourite trademarks, that of cutting abdomens and that of cutting necks, behind at any killing spot. Other things are added, like the facial mutilations and the circus at Dorset Street, but none of these killings go without the two typical trademarks, where at least one of them with great certainty can be pinned as an urge.

I have come across quite a lot of weird characters over the decades, when it comes to killing. But I have never seen the type of transition we are speaking of here - in fact I have never seen anything even remotely like it. That´s not to say that it is impossible - it´s just to point to the fact that it obviously is an extremely rare thing - if it exists in other cases.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

But he's more than qualified to assess the validity of the argument that a stabber cannot become a slasher.

[Fisherman]

And so are many other serial killers, Ben - and this trait of an experimental character is exactly what makes them so unlike the Ripper! He ALWAYS stuck to his key elements, and therefore only other killers who stuck to THEIR significant key elements make good comparisons to the Ripper.
And to make a good comparison with the Ripper, Tabram included, we need such a consistent serial killer who sets out using one method, only to lock onto a very stable, different agenda afterwards.
The one thing you may have going for you is the fact that Tabram came first. But the different methods as well as the differences in focusing ability points the other way in an emphatic manner.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

This sodding debate goes on forever.

Kürten, a clear-cut sadist is the one who seems the better comparison with Jack, since he killed out of urge, but it was not a focused urge, but a very experimental one.

Just like Jack's could have been, Fish. It is likely that Jack became focussed as a result of experience, not by being a ready-made product. We know that Kurten was experimental on account of his victim tally. If we knew for certain how many victims Jack murdered, we'd be all set to make a reasonable case for him being equally experimental.

What Kürten never was, was a man who was consistent in his manner of killing.

But that's because we know how many victims he murdered, because he was caught. We don't know how many victims Jack killed, so we're not entitled to decide how consistent he was. If Kurten was never caught and identified, I'm sure there would be many who would argue that he was responsible for only his most consistent ones, but in so doing they'd be ruling out all of his other victims. They'd be making the same error if they applied the same loopy logic to the likes of Sutcliffe and others. We know that they were capable of consistency, just as they were capable of diversity, and the same many well be true of the ripper, as every single criminologist under the sun will attest.

Your comparison rests to a significant degree on an acceptance that Tabram WAS a Ripper victim, and that we may therefore conclude that the Ripper varied his killing methods

Not at all. I'm just embracing expect opinion and looking at germane examples from history. It's much worse to include only the "consistent" ones, and decide that Jack must have been "consistent" based on the victims we've already excluded. You can't decide how Unkurtenish he is based on a presupposition as to his kill-tally. If he was responsible for other murders, he'd be less consistent, deapite having a few consistent killers under his belt.

But I have never seen the type of transition we are speaking of here - in fact I have never seen anything even remotely like it.

Well then I'd strongly encourage you to read up on other cases, and listen to a few genuine experts on the topic. Because they don't find it strange at all, and no single expert has argued for Tabram's exclusion, far from it. Robert Keppel, who knows more about serial killers than all of us here, and whose background and knowledge certainly trumps all of ours, has argued for Tabram being a ripper victim, and he finds nothing strange or rare about a transition from stabbing to slashing. It's the opposite of a rare thing, and if Tabram was a ripper victim, the killer would still be regarded as consistent in contrast to most.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

But he's more than qualified to assess the validity of the argument that a stabber cannot become a slasher.

No, he isn't, Ben. He has some psychobabble qualifications and experience, but that doesn't automatically make him a competent analyst, let alone an "expert" with valid views on most things under the sun. I know one or two psychobabble PhD's whose opinions on anything, outside the narrow scopes of their doctoral theses, I wouldn't ask for in a million years. I wouldn't even trust them to generalize within the broad compass of their subject, either, come to that, because so much of it is uncertain.