Ripper Victim?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

In any case, Killeen's point about "no recent connexion" was clearly in response to a follow up question...

"Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made (here is omitted what the ELO described as the wound in the lower portion of the body), and in answer to questions stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion" - E. London Advertiser.

OK, there I admit I was wrong. I obviously missed that one.
The thing is, I am so used to see that special statement stand on its own, finishing most coroner reports where the crime has been suspected of being of sexual character. That is how it's done also in Swedish crime reports from this time.

What I still don't get is how you could treat this as some sort of evbidence of that the Ripper may be involved. As I said before - and a point which you choose to avoid - if there WAS a wound to the lower part of the body, why wouldn't there be if she already displayed wounds all over the torso and the neck? What would be so special about yet another wound, even though it may have been placed in the lower region?
Surely to establish that she may have had a wound in the genital area is not enough in order to connect it with the Ripper.

And once again - Killeen clearly states that the large wound was penetrating the chest bone and most likely was the cause of death. hence, this wound was not placed in the lower region. Since Killeen specifically singles out the large wound as the one in the chest area, then one can reasonably assume that the one in the genital area - if there was such a wound in the first place - was just as small and possibly a stab similar to the 38 small ones. In other words, just one of many stab wounds.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn,

You clearly have personal theories (as do I). It does not alter the fact that you have not actually responded to any of the specific things I cited in reports of Killeen's testimony. Which is fine.

RH

The problem is, Rob, that regardless of how many times I do try to respond you don't acknowledge it and then say I haven't responded enough. It's the same modus operandi as Dan Norder uses and I can assure that is not a compliment.

That aside, I have no personal beef with you because when it all comes down to it you are always well read up on the subject you discuss - probably better than I am - and I can respect that. I also find your research into Kosminski very impressive so it's hard to dislike a person with such research skills.

It's just that we seldom seem to agree on the conclusions. And as I said before, I am OK with that. This is all a matter of personal interpretation of the evidence anyway, even though I personally will never accept Tabram as a Ripper victim.
I don't have any personal theories regarding tabram, since the surviving evidence tells me all I need to know as far as this particular crime is concerned.

All the best

[robhouse]

The wound in the "lower portion of the body" was described as "being three inches in length and one in depth." (E. London Observer) This, to me, does not sound like a stab... more like a cut.

As such, I think it is an interesting point to ponder... especially if it was in the genitals. I am not stating that this (or any other aspect of Tabram's wounds) proves by any means that she was a Ripper victim. I am just proposing that it is possible, and in my opinion, likely. But I allow that others will disagree with me.

So we clearly disagree. That is fine, and I am happy to leave it at that. I appreciate your kind words in any case.

Rob H

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No probs, Robert.
And the kind words are well earnt.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Once and for all (you can´t blame me for trying...): A wound that is three inches long and one inch deep, inflicted by a knife IS A CUT!

That is not to say that it was originally INTENDED as a cut. But if it comes out as a cut, a cut it remains, regardless of the intention.

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And of course, when someone in a fierce manner inflicts 39 wounds to a body, one wouldn't expect them all to be of the exact same character - unless you believe the killer used a ruler or a spirit level to make sure.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"And of course, when someone in a fierce manner inflicts 39 wounds to a body, one wouldn't expect them all to be of the exact same character - unless you believe the killer used a ruler or a spirit level to make sure."

In fact, Glenn, none of them will be EXACTLY the same. But since the cut to the lower abdomen was singled out by Killeen, we can be fairly sure that there were no twins on her body. And since it was stated that there was only the one wound to the region described as the lower body, we can deduct that it was very un-twinly in more than one aspect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

A wound that is three inches long and one inch deep, inflicted by a knife IS A CUT!

Indeed, Fish - but that's barely a scratch, even when compared to the wounds inflicted to the throats of the Canonical Five (not that Tabram's throat was cut, of course). It pales into further insignificance when compared to the cuts inflicted on the abdomens of the Not-so-canonical Four.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Well, Fisherman, I think you overinterpret and exaggerate the importance of this alleged cut to the lower abdomen.
And, as has been said previously, its connection with the Ripper is remote or minimal.

Fact remains that the wound that Killeen actually singled out in the Times - and which he interpreted as being done by a different weapon - was the one that went through the chest bone, and which he at the same inquest assumed was the cause of death.

But each his own.

All the best

[Ben]

My hunch here, Ben, is that your dislike of me connects very well to the fact that you have a very hard time accepting that you may be wrong.

I've never said I dislike you, Fishcakes. I've never thought it either. I just find your prose antagonises me from time to time, and I don't believe I'm alone. Of course I accept that I may be wrong, just as I accept that Tabram may not be a ripper victim, but certainly not on the basis of some of the overconfident theories for excluding her.

You are the one who keep adding one deed after another, with no evidence at all

I don't accept that there's "no evidence at all". I think that the evidence from Tabram's murder enables us to present a very reasonable if unproven case for her having been an early victim of the ripper. It looks like you do too. Your "very little likeness" becomes a very sad canard indeed when we know what the vast majority of serial killers are capable of, and that includes the most consistent ones.

But there is no way you are going to be able to prove that Tabram was the Rippers, or that her death was a perfect predecessor to the Ripper killing.

I'm not seeking to prove either of those things, thanks. I'm just trying to disabuse people of flawed reasons for ruling out a potential victim in a murder series.

Yes. For all the good reasons. As opposed to you

But that's according to you, isn't it?

Having just chastised me for failing to see the other debator's point of view, you've suddenly appointed yourself the final arbiter of sound theorizing, deciding in the process that your reasons must be the good ones because you say they are. I might consider that mine are the good reasons for including her, while yours are the crap ones, but if Fish insists on my accepting the reverse, who am I to disagree?

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Indeed, Fish - but that's barely a scratch, even when compared to the wounds inflicted to the throats of the Canonical Five. It's barely a pin-prick compared to the wounds that opened up the abdomens of the Not-so-canonical Four."

Why settle for minor comparisons, Sam? Compared to the wound a Tyrannosaurus Rex, sinking it´s teeth into the belly of a Torosaurus, would cause, it would be completely ridiculous! Not to mention what a killer whale could do to a seal, a great white shark to a tuna and a sabre-toothed lion to a warthog!
I should be ashamed of myself, I really should. Sorry!

Aaaah, that was better - there´s nothing like a little irony when you feel that the world is turning against you. Sam, you and I both know that I have never said that the cut we are discussing would be a finished product. My contention is that he did not follow it through for some reason. We can be talking about an interruption of some sort, probably led on by the fact that Tabram was...
But hey, we´we been over this ground before, havent we?

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"Fact remains that the wound that Killeen actually did single out - and which he interpreted as being done by a different weapon - was the one that went through the chest bone, and which he assumed was the cause of death."

He singled them both out, Glenn. And he actually stated that she had bled to death, which seems pretty incongruent with his further statements that she lived throughout the stabbing and that the wound to the heart in itself was enough to cause death.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You´re wearing me to the bone, Ben, as usual. And we are not going to get any further on this issue. I have stated my belief, you have stated yours. I say that seeing evidence of actions related to how we know the Ripper worked in the accepted cases is what we need to be able to speak of a connection between canonicals and non-canonicals, whereas you say that we are free to do so without any such evidence. Let´s leave it at that, shall we? i know I will, at least for now - I´m off to bed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, you and I both know that I have never said that the cut we are discussing would be a finished product. My contention is that he did not follow it through for some reason. But hey, we´we been over this ground before, havent we?

Indeed, Fish - and you know that I'm not too enamoured of "interruption theories". Suffice to say that in subsequent murders the Ripper slashed open the abdomen with evident resolve and purpose. Quite how one gets from a superficial wound to the "private part" to slicing through great slabs of belly-flesh is a mystery. Perhaps he'd read Moby Dick in the intervening three weeks, and this inspired him?

[Chava]

Indeed, Fish - and you know that I'm not too enamoured of "interruption theories". Suffice to say that in subsequent murders the Ripper slashed open the abdomen with evident resolve and purpose. Quite how one gets from a superficial wound to the "private part" to slicing through great slabs of belly-flesh is a mystery. Perhaps he'd read Moby Dick in the intervening three weeks, and this inspired him?

The problem with dissing 'interruption theories' is that occasionally they have merit. The Ripper was clearly interrupted when he killed Stride. No reason to say categorically that Tabram's killer wasn't interrupted as well. I'm assuming some reason for tearing her bodice away from her dress. It doesn't sound as if he just wanted to puncture her some more. He may have intended to hang around and do a bit more damage.

I understand the rip vs stab argument, and it has clear validity. However I am a bit leery, as you know, of dismissing possibilities out-of-hand, especially in the circumstances we find here. Certainly it seems that a number of the policemen on the Ripper case felt that there might have been a connection.