Ripper Victim?

[Sam Flynn]

Dr. Llewellyn specifically mentioned "stabs"

I think it was "two small stabs on the private parts", Ben - at least, as that's where they were located according to Spratling's paraphrase of Llywelyn. Whatever, Nichols' two small stabs formed a tiny component of the big picture, contrasted dramatically with the enormous number of deep stab-wounds inflicted on Tabram, the overwhelming majority of which were concentrated in the upper half of the body... to say nothing of the complete absence of any ripping and no cut throat.

[Ben]

I think it was "two small stabs on the private parts", Ben

That's the one, Gareth.

Small though the stabs may have been, they were still stabs nonetheless, and Nichols would thus constitute a near-perfect example of a gap being bridged between a killer who repeatedly stabbed a victim and one who ripped open the abdomen. Stabbing to stabbing/slashing is in incredibly minor alteration for a serial killer, especially if Tabram was his first murder (and we know that first murders will often be a rather more haphazard affair). He simply gained new insights into alternative methods as he explored. He didn't need months and months to come up with the idea of facial mutilations, but once he discovered he liked it, he stuck with it.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Stabbing to stabbing/slashing

Nichols' death was by no means a "stabbing/slashing" murder, Ben - that's almost like saying that the death of Ann Boleyn was a case of decapitation/hair-cut, because the executioner's blade trimmed her barnet en route to her neck. To use a visual metaphor for Tabram/Nichols it's more a case of...

STABBING

versus

stabsCUT THROATRIPPING


...than "stabbing" versus "stabbing/slashing".

[Ally]

You know, that visual could have been created by using Fonts and not uploading a completely unnecessary attachment to the servers.

[Sam Flynn]

You know, that visual could have been created by using Fonts and not uploading a completely unnecessary attachment to the servers.

Now sorted, thanks.

However,

a) for ages I couldn't get different sized fonts to work for me - they evidently do now, which is nice;

b) I purposely compressed the attachment to only 9K to save on server space, which is more than most people would have bothered doing.

I do think about these things, you know.

[Ben]

Nichols' death was by no means a "stabbing/slashing" murder, Ben

It was in the sense that it was a murder and mutilation on a Whitechapel prostitute that included the stabbing and ripping components, Gareth. That, I feel, is the more salient point, as opposed to the varying degrees of each component. The latter is entirely suspectible to change as the killer discovers new methods of murder and mutilation that still encompass murder and post mortem attacks with knives on prostitutes. There's certainly nothing in the rule-book that says he couldn't have appreciable lessened the stabbing while cultivating an interest in the abdominal region come the next murder.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Plus, Sam and Ally, it served it´s purpose - it effectively showed that if we seek the Ripper in Tabrams stabs as well as in Nichols wounds, there is a large gap to bridge. I have been thinking a bit about the two small stabs on Nichols "private parts"; could it be that he tried to shove the knife in as far down as possible to commence his opening cut, only to hit bone and realize that he had to move further up her abdomen in order to find penetrable tissues? Just a thought.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chava]

The main evidence against Tabram=Ripper Victim is the stabbing. But that amount of stabbing takes a longish time. I timed it! Roughly 15 seconds just to raise and lower my hand in air. It would have taken maybe twice that long to pull the knife out of a clothed body and plunge it back in. If he just wanted to kill her, he might have done it more quickly. It seems like a frenzied attack with some not-particularly-subtle sexual overtones. I think he reached some kind of climax there.

I can't refute the argument of those who believe she wasn't a Ripper victim, and I'm not sure I believe it myself. I'm as much on the fence on this one as I am on the Kelly killing. But if I had to choose, I'd put her with the Ripper kills. Interesting that the murders start and end with two 'iffy' ones!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Stabbing to stabbing/slashing is in incredibly minor alteration for a serial killer, especially if Tabram was his first murder (and we know that first murders will often be a rather more haphazard affair). He simply gained new insights into alternative methods as he explored.

Absolute nonsense.
We are not talking about someone who in that case is finding new methods to use but who actually manages to come up with an urge or driving force where he NEEDS to mutilate, open nthem up and cut their throats extremely deep - way betond what is necessary.
The important parts of what the Ripper did is not MO, but what is often referred to as "signature" elements, which in turn are usually rooted in the ooffender's fantasies. You don't come up with new fantasies in three weeks and suddenly realizes that you "rip to open someone up post mortem". It is just plain ridiculous.
Again - this has NOTHING to do with "change of MO".

He didn't need months and months to come up with the idea of facial mutilations, but once he discovered he liked it, he stuck with it.

No, but then again the nicks in the face only seems to have been a slight addition to his already fixed signature.
The main elements - throat cut extremely deep, ripping and opening up the victim post mortem are there also on Eddowes. The facial cuts are only an extension to that signature - not a replacement or "change".
And that is why we should see some of those elements also on Tabram.
We don't. Tabram was not a Ripper victim.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Interesting that the murders start and end with two 'iffy' ones!

That's because none of them were works of the Ripper.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Chava writes:

"It seems like a frenzied attack with some not-particularly-subtle sexual overtones"

Hmm, Chava. I keep hearing about these "sexual overtones", but personally I see nothing such evinced at all. Surely a wish to annihilate somebody does not have to hold any sexual elements?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"And that is why we should see some of those elements also on Tabram.
We don't. Tabram was not a Ripper victim."

That, Glenn, is arguably just because you facilitate things by craving an explanation to each and every stab on Tabrams body that can help us see the Ripper behind them. And that is something that is very hard to come up with.

But would you not say that if we isolate the only stab that was clearly made by a different blade, together with the only other wound that arguably might have been, we are suddenly presented with something that very much more resembles the actions of our man? Two distinctly focused wounds, one of them directed at the very area that all Ripperologists agree was a target area which Jack felt an urge to handle, and the other one a totally rational kill-off stab!

Like I have said before, the extreme depth of the cuts to the throats may well have been led on by the Rippers wish to ensure that he cut of all the major blood vessels PLUS the windpipe. Cut to the bone, and you will have made sure!
We cannot argue that if he wanted these very details severed, he would cut two-inch deep at the left side, then sink the blade further in an inch or three as he cut at the front, only to let it taper off at the right side, can we? It would be a "surgical" approach that we should not expect - but cut the whole thing off as deeply as possible, and there are no risks left - now THAT sounds like our rational, risk-avoiding, focused, on-target killer to me!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

My experience...

...with contemporary news reports indicate stabbings are far more common than throat cuts. A fair few being stabbings to the throat. Just felt the need to share.

[Chava]

Hmm, Chava. I keep hearing about these "sexual overtones", but personally I see nothing such evinced at all. Surely a wish to annihilate somebody does not have to hold any sexual elements?

To me, 39 stab wounds indicates something other than a straightforward wish to kill. 3 or 4 would have done the trick, especially since the #1 suspect is a soldier, and so, I presume, trained in combat. 10 might have suggested incontinent rage. 39? That's a lot of stabbing. And I think...er...something else is going on while the stabbing is taking place.

[Ben]

Absolute nonsense.

No, it isn't.

A serial killer is perfectly capable of gaining new insights as he progressses and explores.

It's true. Fact. Unlucky.

You don't come up with new fantasies in three weeks and suddenly realizes that you "rip to open someone up post mortem".

Yes, you do. Easily. Facial mutilations are a component of signature, since they were entirely extraneous to the act of pulling off an efficient crime, and yet he came up with that component of signature within the space of a month. That is an irrefutable, ironclad fact. Which means he was just as capable of coming up with other components of signature within a similar time frame, such as abdominal mutilations and deep throat cuts. What you describe as the "main elements" were far more likely to have been components he alighted upon as he progressed, just like the facial gashes.

Of course facial mutilations were a change. They were absent previously, but they arrived with Eddowes. I don't accept for a moment that facial mutilations versus no facial mutilations is more of a change than stabbing to stabbing/slashing.

Best regards,
Ben