Ripper Victim?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hello all,

Michael hits on something when he says 'great rage'. That does appear to be quite evident in the murder of Tabram. It was a very clumsy murder. We would expect his next murder to only slightly less clumsy. But is that what we get?

Wolf Vanderlinden and other authors have utilized the 'cuts' to Polly Nichols' abdomen as evidence of a 'transition' between the stabbing killer of Tabram and the cutting killer of Chapman and co. I believe this is completely wrong as the awkward cuts to Polly's stomach are indicitive of a someone trying to work his knife up under her loose stays...which were obviously not loose enough for his purposes. What we DON'T see in the Nichols murder is any evidence of rage. He did not lose his temper and start cutting away at her body. He quietly abandoned her, probably when he heard Cross approaching. In the following murder of Chapman, having learned his lesson, he cut through her clothes.

I think from this it's pretty clear that Nichols was the first woman he attempted to disembowel with her clothes on. Probably the first woman he attempted this on at all. But also it doesn't seem like a first murder. So, it is possible he killed Tabram, but the evidence strongly suggests two different personalities.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

That has to be one of the best posts I have ever read from you.
Absolutely beautiful.

And I agree with every word in it.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Mike,

Like Tom, I don't buy at all the idea of Jack stumbling on the body. Neither do I believe that there were two men involved - whether both collaborated in her death, or one killed her and the other came along afterwards.

I have to agree with that, Gareth.
I wouldn't rule out two killers, but personally I believe more in one perpetrator with two weapons.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"personally I believe more in one perpetrator with two weapons."

Not only that, Glenn. He also displayed one totally unfocused level of stabbing, where the hits went hither and thither, and another level, where he stayed extremely focused, and, with the clear intent to kill, stabbed through the breastbone.
Does that sound like the ordinary, out-of-focus, frenzied, over-the-top killer to you? You have seen lots and lots of frenzies, Glenn. In how many of them did the killer suddenly turn focused? You know just as well as I do that frenzies end up messes, and Tabram was a mess - up til stab number 39.

What little evidence there is strongly urges us to accept the possibility that there were two widely differing characters behind them two blades, Glenn. The hey-letīs-stop-this-unrestrained-stabbing-behaviour-and-get-a-killing-stab-in type would have been a very odd customer to say the least - you, if anybody, should know this. And anybody who actually swops weapons in the midst of it all is quite beyond belief.

the best,
Fisherman

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I have initiated a thread some time ago called "Scavenger or predator", and my feeling is that Jack would have chosen the former whenever he could. Of course, London was not littered with stabbed women on tenement landings, and that simply forced him to add the actual killing to his agenda. But we have no evidence telling us that he enjoyed that part - in fact, he gets it overwith as fast as he can, implying to me that it was of no actual significance to him.

Jack also got the abdominal mutilations over and done with quickly too, and it seems clear that he very much got some kind of satisfaction out of doing that. I think it's possible Jack also got enjoyment out of cutting the women's throats too as there are far quicker and cleaner ways in which he could've killed them that would've spared him a bit more time to work on the cadaver.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Glenn. Although I hope that wasn't my best post ever!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No but definitely Top Five stuff.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

No but definitely Top Five stuff.

Practically... canonical

[Chava]

Of all the Tabram theories etc, the one I find hardest to believe is that 2 people were involved in the killing. If only because one of them probably wasn't 'frenzied' and would be able to get the other away before the stabbing spree resulted in both of them being caught and hanged. Also I don't think the landing at the George Yard Buildings is big enough to support two assailants and a fairly large victim at the same time.

As for the 'scavenger' theory. I know it takes all kinds. But a wandering Ripper happening on a dead woman and thinking 'Hallo! Just what I was looking for' is beyond unlikely.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

As for the 'scavenger' theory. I know it takes all kinds. But a wandering Ripper happening on a dead woman and thinking 'Hallo! Just what I was looking for' is beyond unlikely.

Especially given that he did nothing other than stab her in the heart and scratch a part of her 'lower torso', whatever that means (was it even stated that that meant her poontang or belly, not to be crude?). You'd expect a bit more than that if Jack had scavanged the corpse or near-dying Tabram. If Jack did kill Tabram, then it was nothing more than a self-imposed test to see if he had it in him to actually kill a person (which he obviously must've done before Nichols), but I'm not even convinced by that. Everything points to a frenzied client other than Jack who topped her for whatever reason.

[perrymason]

Hi again all,

Just to correct what I think may be assumed...I personally dont believe nor have I ever suggested that two killers means one "after the fact". And as Sam points out....like I have also many times, Soldiers were wearing larger knives/daggers/bayonets in public that same night, likely with smaller, perhaps "pen-knives" in their pockets, making them a potential one man shop, for 2 different wounds.

I do think though since its quite possible that she was choked at the same time as being stabbed that two men may have killed her...one choking, one stabbing.

Its quite clear that some soldiers were pairing up that night...we have the 2 that meet Martha and Poll, and the soldier near George Yard at around 2am met by the PC, claiming to be waiting for his pal off with a woman, we can assume the pal is a soldier fairly safely.

If we know that soldiers may have been seen in pairs, and we have 2 different wounds.. one that may have been made by bayonet, and a requirement that the victim if stabbed while being choked, had to remain silent for the killer to evade being heard....which he/they was/were...then why exclude 2 killers?

In 4 of the Canonicals deaths, there is no evidence that more than one man was needed or was present to have committed the acts....nor was a cry for help heard by anyone....which is probably a a result of his subduing his victims fully...before even using a knife. Both hands and likely scarves or the like were used, the victim passes out, he slices them open.

In Martha's case, the evidence could easily be interpreted as one man holding her from behind, and keeping the victim silent, another one stabbing furiously at the front of her. She slumps, the man from behind pulls out his dagger/bayonet and comes round to plunge it into her....thus fully connecting him to the crime of murder by physical evidence...that single large wound...and ensuring that neither killer could turn the other in because they both harmed the victim who dies.

We know soldiers consider every other serviceman like a brother in arms, and we can easily imagine that if one gets himself into an illegal situation that is dangerous, he might have a brother in arms who would assist him...rather than turn him in to the authorities.

A soldier gets his buddy and tells him that some whore just took his money and didnt come across, then laughed at him.....they both go back drunk and angry to settle that score. One flips out and frantically stabs her over and over... she slumped...the friend who was only restraining the victim then ensures the victim cannot somehow survive by stabbing her with a large bayonet or dagger to finish her off. They both leave with the soldiers money and more...one thanking the other for helping him out, the other telling the "knife guy" he will kill him if he ever tells anyone that he helped him kill that whore. They'd be courtmartialled and then tried for murder if anyone found out.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

Apologies for the belated reponse, and thanks for putting us in the picture with regard to Wolf's view. I'm strongly inclined to agree with his stance, for what it's worth. I too discern a "transitional" phase. I've always felt the "rage" evinced by Tabram's butchery may have may have had something to do with earlier failures. If, like many serial killers, he had made a few botched attempts on account of his inexperience - Millwood and wilson spiring to mind - he may have become frustrated that his victims were crying out and escaping. Just a speculatin' here, but the overkill we see in Tabram's case may have been the killer's way of saying, "I'm going to make damn sure you're not going to get away like the others".

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Ben,

I agree....the man that kills Martha by stabbing her 38 or 39 times exhibits "overkill" actions..likely driven by emotional instability at that moment. The Ripper victims that match in most of the overall details showed overkill too....but it was cutting the throat more deeply than required...almost severing the head from the body in some cases.

In Marthas case overkill is seen by many, many inefficient and non-lethal stabs among some that were mortal wounds. In Pollys, Annies, and Kates case the "overkill" is the depth of the throat cut...far more severe than needed to kill.

One guy kills by stabbing far more times than was needed to kill, and stabs in places that leave non-lethal wounds... and one guy kills by slitting throats more deeply than needed, using at most 2 firm strokes, and in a location sure to kill them.

Those are "overkill" characteristics that show one very inefficient emotional killer,... and comparatively, one overly efficient one. Where is the "transition" death if both were by Jack?

Best regards Ben.

[Fisherman]

Chava writes:

"a wandering Ripper happening on a dead woman and thinking 'Hallo! Just what I was looking for' is beyond unlikely"

That goes to show what semantics can do for you; makes it all look kind of ridiculous, does it not?
Then again, that would have been the effect you were after, right?

But if we imagine a man with an urge to eviscerate, roaming the East end streets night after night, hoping to find something that answers to his urges - perhaps a woman so drunk that she has passed out, or somebody badly beaten up..? Imagine such a guy, knife in pocket, feverishly searching for an opportunity as the night hours trickle by, knowing that something is bound to come along sooner or later - then you have a perspective that may seem a little less ridiculous, donīt you? And is that not something that very much seems like EXACTLY the thing the Ripper did? Searching out the weak and the vulnerable on the nightly streets of Whitechapel? And when he found his prey, he would have thought "Hello! Just what I was looking for!", would he not?

It is not as if Whitechapel and Spitalfields back in them days would be a fair comparison to our society. Back then robbery, fistfights and knife violence were extremely common things, and the major part of it went down in the streets at nighttime. Anybody actively looking for a chance to prey upon subdued, drunk, beaten up, weak people would have had opportunities en masse - and that, it would seem, was exactly the type of clientele the Ripper chose.

It is all very easy to say that the scavenger angle is "far-fetched", and yes -if I have to prove it, I remain at a disadvantage.
But I can just as easily put you at a disadvantage, Chava, by asking you what other perspective fits the bill better? I am not the one having to come up with explanations to the inconsistencies of the Tabram deed - that task is left to those who say that there is nothing strange about the fact that TWO weapons were used, and that it is equally no odd thing that she had one wound and one wound only to her lower body - and that was a cut.

I think that details like those need to be tended to before one starts laughing about a scenario that gives all the answers. Donīt you?

The best, Chava!
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Tabram's skirt was lifted up, Jeff - there was nothing stopping him targeting her abdomen. Nothing at all.

Your putting the cart before the horse. Whoever did this crime was targeting the body with a small knife. She was strangled lowered to the ground and stabbed while on the ground (supposition). I'm suggesting that the raising of the skirt and final slash was the end game that would be picked up on at the next attack. If Tabram 's attack had of happened after Nichol's you would have a point. But it didn't. These attacks are a natural progression.

Yet he rained blow after blow - the majority of the wounds - at just below chest level or above.Jack was a cutter, not a slasher. His method of cutting - or "ripping" - involved sustained and controlled pressure on a knife, over a considerable distance, penetrating through several layers of flesh. Tabram's 1" deep wound would barely have penetrated the skin and subcutaneous fat.

Yes i agree, but these blows as I have continually pointed out were through her clothing. Affecting how these blows were delivered and received.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Mike,

Like Tom, I don't buy at all the idea of Jack stumbling on the body. Neither do I believe that there were two men involved - whether both collaborated in her death, or one killed her and the other came along afterwards.

Yes I'm with you and Tom on this 100%

however I think it was Jack.

Pirate