-
The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing -
Fishtail,
I am confused.
I've had other things to do these past few days, but I thought you and Ben were on the same side on these issue.
Do I detect a change of heart from you here regarding Tabram?
All the bestThe Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for NothingComment
-
Fisherman wrote: "what we look at is somebody AVOIDING the reproductive area"
Except that Swanson, in his summary report of the murder, wrote there were “39 wounds on body, and neck, and private part.”
Also, The Morning News mentioned “39 punctured wounds on the body and legs,” even though no wounds to the “legs” were specifically mentioned by Killeen. So I think "legs" might be a euphamism, as it may well have been in the case of Annie Milwood, in my opinion ("numerous stabs in the legs and lower part of the body").
RHComment
-
Glenn writes:
"I've had other things to do these past few days, but I thought you and Ben were on the same side on these issue.
Do I detect a change of heart from you here regarding Tabram?"
You´d wish, Glenn!
No, my friend, I have not changed my mind on Tabram; not at all. I still believe that she was a Ripper victim - but that belief rests on the fact that I think that there were two men with knifes out and about in George Yard that evening. There certainly were two different blades about, and there were two types of wounds too, especially if we accept that the cut was intended as a cut: unfocused wounds, performed by a stabber in a possible frenzy, and focused wounds, performed by a man with another agenda than annihilation.
If I am wrong on this, and there was only the one knife-wielder, then I´d say that Tabram was probably not a victim of Jacks. I find it too much of a stretch to believe in a man who first delivers nigh on forty stabs in a frenzied manner, only to turn focused and suddenly work with an agenda of opening up his victim. That, Glenn, is a bit too much even for a man with as free-flowing a phantasy as mine
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 02-28-2009, 11:16 PM.Comment
-
Robhouse writes:
"Fisherman wrote: "what we look at is somebody AVOIDING the reproductive area"
A little more extensive reading and a more generously measured quotation would have provided the sentence "In fact, but for the cut to the lower abdomen - that may have been intended as a stab - what we look at is somebody AVOIDING the reproductive area."
...and that cut would have been the one Swanson was referring to as well! So I think I did what I could do to avoid somebody telling me I was wrong here, Robhouse. The fact of the matter remains, though, that 38 out of 39 wounds seem not to have been targetting the reproductive area.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Then at least we agree on that issue. And considering the above, you shouldn't really accept Tabram as a Ripper victim, because the idea of another man adding that last injury on Tabrma's body after another killer had stabbed her is incredibly far-fecthed and totally unlikely. I don't buy that one for a second and offers a coincidence scenario that makes no sense whatsoever.Originally posted by Fisherman View PostIf I am wrong on this, and there was only the one knife-wielder, then I´d say that Tabram was probably not a victim of Jacks. I find it too much of a stretch to believe in a man who first delivers nigh on forty stabs in a frenzied manner, only to turn focused and suddenly work with an agenda of opening up his victim. That, Glenn, is a bit too much even for a man with as free-flowing a phantasy as mine
Nor is it necessary. If there were two blades involved, the general idea of one perpatrator using two knives or two killers acting in collaboration is way easier to accept and more grounded in common sense.
But then again, you're a master at making already complicated things even more complicated.
All the bestThe Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for NothingComment
-
Fisherman wrote: "The fact of the matter remains, though, that 38 out of 39 wounds seem not to have been targetting the reproductive area."
As far as I know, the number of wounds listed by Killeen at the inquest did not add up to 39. Newspaper accounts of Killeen’s post-mortem testimony specifically described the location of 22 of the 39 wounds—there were 5 in the left lung, 2 in the right lung, 1 in the heart, 5 in the liver, 2 in the spleen, 6 in the stomach, and 1 three-inch cut in the “lower portion of the body.” To these we may add nine wounds in the throat mentioned in the Evening News. That leaves 8 unaccounted for wounds.
Perhaps you know of some source that describes all 39 wounds? Also how do you account for the wounds on the legs?Comment
-
I've said before that the reason Killeen might not have specified the locations of those missing wounds could be that they simply only hit flesh or fat - and probably the neck - and not any specific organs, and I stick by that theory (note how the wounds Killeen mentions all specifies certain organs that they've penetrated).
And if that's correct, then that means that the pattern of wounds becomes even more uncontrolled and irregular.
All the bestThe Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for NothingComment
-
8 out of 39 is pretty poor going, Rob - and all but one of those was aimed unequivocally at the top half of the body, from the stomach upwards. If anything was "targeted", it was clearly Tabram's upper body, the wounds from the belly downwards being in an overwhelming minority. If the remaining 8 were inflicted on the legs, then that leaves the "private part" (Swanson's words) in a minority of one.Originally posted by robhouse View PostKind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)Comment
-
True indeed, Sam.
All the bestThe Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for NothingComment
-
this is not a ripper murder and i dont agree that the killer wasn't drunk.. these stab wounds are random...it's a frenzied attack....
it's a vicious street killing, drunk or not... as simple as that.Comment
-
The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for NothingComment
-
Glenn writes:
"If there were two blades involved, the general idea of one perpatrator using two knives or two killers acting in collaboration is way easier to accept and more grounded in common sense.
But then again, you're a master at making already complicated things even more complicated."
Glenn, I have already written numerous times that I am very much aware that I am not taking the easy way out here. I know that simpler scenarios can be offered than mine - I would be a fool not to realize that. But all other scenarios come up with skidding stabs, two dead silent soldiers in collaboration, one killer swopping knives and the likes of that. The beauty of my scenario is that it covers each and every point, supplying them all with functioning explanations and meanings, and - not least - providing us with a reason to understand what made Jack come up with the idea of cutting his victimd neck¨s before he set about eviscerating them.
You can tell me all night that it is far-fetched and cash in on the applause, and it won´t bother me a bit. Stranger things than this have happened, and whichever way we look at it, you are at as much of a loss asa I am when it comes to proving that you are right. In that sense, we´re in the same boat. After that, it´s just a question of who gets to steer...
Your complicated friend,
FishermanComment
-
Robhouse writes:
"Perhaps you know of some source that describes all 39 wounds?"
No. Nor does anybody else. But I do know of a doctor who stated that there was only one wound to the lower body. That´ll do for now!
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Hi all,
Im pleased to note that despite any differences I may have in a conclusion based on the evidence before us in Martha case, Fisherman and I do agree that there were indeed 2 wound types as specified by the attending medico.
We still can agree on principles even when they are a part of a greater philosophy we dont happen to embrace.
The killer knew where to stab roughly for organs....and a run of the mill fellow not having training in some form, wouldnt. But he didnt stab with each thrust placed to kill... if he did have knowledge on where best to stab beforehand. He stabbed her in places and depths she easily could have survived if they had not been accompanied by stabs that did hit their "mark"....and only one obviously intended to end life.
So to me that means we may have someone who knew where to stab to kill or inflict major organ damage but who in anger loses his control to do so in one or perhaps 2 targeted stabs, or most easily with one or two cuts....instead he executes 39 stabs.
I dont see anger like this in any Canonical until Kate Eddowes, with her nose slicing and facial marking, and then Mary, with who the hell knows what going on in his mind then.
Im inclined to think that perhaps the more "violent angry" the attack, the less likely we have a killer who is killing some women seemingly at random... and objectively.
Marthas killer might be a soldier who felt mocked or cheated, two wounds might indicate 2 men, and her having no money might indicate robbery.
Best regards all.Last edited by Guest; 03-01-2009, 01:55 AM.Comment
Tweet
Comment