Ripper Victim?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

What is frenzy? My understanding is 'A tempory loss of mental control'.I do not detect it in the killing of Tabram.I can visualise a period of high alertness through the approach,the actual wounding,and the departure, being as all three were carried out without raising a single suspicion of his presence.How long did the attack last?I have no idea,but in such a public place,he would not be lighting a cigarette,having a sip of beer,or generally lounging around sitting on his ass between stabs.So maybe it was haste,not frenzy,that accounted for what some percieve to be random stabs,and haste and alertness,is very much in evidence in the latter killings.

No, that's more nonsense.
I haven't come across one signle case of multiple stabbing at this magnitude (or even less) that has not been a result of frenzy. It is always a result of uncontrolled frenzy. This is fact, and it is also supported by any police manual I've studied on the subject.
The frenzy does lie in the number of wounds since such a number of wounds indicate anger, loss of control and massive overkill.
There has never been a case of so many stab wounds where the perpetrator hasn't been in a state of frenzy - to state otherwise is plain ignorance.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The fact is that Nichols had two small stab wounds, which were incidental to the majority of her horrific injuries - they might even have been accidental to them. The same cannot be said of Tabram, where such wounds - deep ones - predominated to the point of exclusivity.

Exactly, Gareth. Yes yes and yes.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

My biggest confusion lie in the fact that we now seem to have two threads on the same subject (the thread "Martha Tabram--First In the Series").

Heck, my energy level can hardly handle this one.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Unfortunately, Fish was kindly wrong, Jeff. She was stabbed, multiple times, and sustained one wound to the lower body which might have been a short cut, but which might easily have been an angled stab that went wrong. Killeen only says that she was "penetrated" once in the lower body, which lends weight to the probability that this, too, was another stab-wound"

To begin with, Sam, I think that we are going to have to wait to see whether I´m right or wrong on this one.
To proceed, Killeens telling us that she was penetrated at the lower abdomen does not mean that he was telling us that she was stabbed there. To produce a wound, you HAVE to penetrate the skin, Sam!
Besides, it would seem that Killeen made the assumption that the abdominal cut belonged to the flurry of stabs, and statistically it was a sound guess. What he said, however, was not that all of these 38 wounds had been produced by the same blade; he only stated that they could have been so, whereas the stab to the heart could NOT. And much as a stab will give away the width of the blade that caused it, a cut will not do so, meaning that we cannot conclude which of the two blades that caused the cut.

Therefore, Sam, if we feel an urge to add the abdominal cut to the other 37 stabs, we must first accept that the man who produced it for some reason decided to add that single wound to an area in which he showed no further interest - it was an isolated wound, the only one to occur on the lower part of her body.
And once we decide to accept that such a detail is nothing strange at all, we must move on to make next decision, the decision that there is nothing odd in the fact that this wound - as the only one out of a total of 39 wounds - "happened" to come out as a cut.
Having gobbled THAT down, there is only one more obstacle before we can declare that wound "nothing strange at all", and that is the fact that it would seem that it ended up at the very place the Ripper was interested in.

To add a few numbers - just for jolly - we may first mention that since the other 38 stabs all seems to have ended up further up her body, leaving the lower body a pristine area altogether, the statistical credibility of wound number 39 also ending up on that upper body would be somewhere around 97 %.

The next number belongs to the credibility that the wound on the lower abdomen would be the only one to come out as a cut. One out of 39, that means that it was less than a 3 % chance - but it happened, alright.

The last figure is somewhat hard to establish, but I will give it a go anyway: If we split the surface of the front of Tabrams body into square decimetres, and if we do so by making the guess that it would be fair to use the (very) approximate measuring of 15x3 decimetres, then we end up with 45 square decimetres. And the chance/risk that the wound we are discussing would end up at the place it did, that perhaps being the area over the uterus, comes up as slightly more than 2 %.

There is little need to point out to me that there are uncertain elements about. I realize that. I still think this is a very useful lesson in maths, though, since I genuinely feel that it must be realized that a VERY compelling case can be made for the wound being something very much out of the ordinary!

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Well when you guys have figured it out between you perhaps you could let me know your conclusion. In the mean time we still appear to have Stabs and Slashes. Admittedly in largely differing amounts in each attack but a mixture all the same. So while I’m happy to admit we have a lame duck it is a duck none the less

And do we have any indication how the knife was held or used? I still see Jack on a learning curve.

Pirate

PS Hey Fish old man. When I said the other day that those Scandinavians are infuriating it was meant as a compliment not a criticism.

PS PS Happy Birthday Gareth.

[richardnunweek]

Hello,
All I can say is this thread[ one of two] is extremely lengthy, especially as the vast majority of Casebook doubt it had any referance to the series.
I share the opinion that it was the Rippers first kill, and the multiple stabbing was the intention to shock with its ferocity.
I would suggest that the murder was committed inside, for the insecurity the killer felt in killing outside, and the Nichols slaying was committed on the streets at the furthest point away from his dwellings then the others, the shock value increased, and the safety angle continued.
I am no crime profiler, but i would suggest that the remaining murders had to increase the mutilation[ which they did apart from Stride..explanations] and that the killers last kill was very close [ if not on] to his own doorstep.
I said all that without reference to....... theory self control.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"When I said the other day that those Scandinavians are infuriating it was meant as a compliment not a criticism"

...and when I replied that I´m fond of you too, I was merely stating a ascertained fact!

The best, Jeff!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

Interesting post, but...

To proceed, Killeens telling us that she was penetrated at the lower abdomen does not mean that he was telling us that she was stabbed there.

He says "penetrated", not "cut"; he says "she was stabbed 39 times" not "she was stabbed 38 times and cut once".

I still think this is a very useful lesson in maths, though, since I genuinely feel that it must be realized that a VERY compelling case can be made for the wound being something very much out of the ordinary!

No amount of maths can build a compelling argument that a wound a mere 3" long and only 1" deep to "the lower body" was significant. Where I come from, we call that a "scrage" - little more than a scratch. Seeing that single "scrage" in the context of a huge number of wounds concentrated around the throat, chest and stomach diminishes its significance still further.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

He says "penetrated", not "cut"; he says "she was stabbed 39 times" not "she was stabbed 38 times and cut once".

Exactly right.

No amount of maths can build a compelling argument that a wound a mere 3" long and only 1" deep to "the lower body" was significant. Where I come from, we call that a "scrage" - little more than a scratch. Seeing that single "scrage" in the context of a huge number of wounds concentrated around the throat, chest and stomach diminishes its significance still further.

And correct again. I have to say Sam's posts on this thread are among the best I've seen on the subject and displaying simple common sense.
Sometimes I get the feeling that the pro-Martha camp is too occupied with far-fetched argumentation and speculation in order to find evidence where there are none.

And if we in addition turns towards mathematics, then the issue gets muddled even further.
At least it's a warning bell ringing in my ears.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"He says "penetrated", not "cut""

Sam, for the Ripper to be able to cut his victims necks, the skin had to be penetrated first.

"he says "she was stabbed 39 times" not "she was stabbed 38 times and cut once"."

Yes. And then he adds that there was a wound at the lower body that was 3x1 inches. It would seem that this wound differed from the other ones in some respect.

I think, Sam, that when we have such a description of a wound, it will be extremely hard to dub it a "stab". It actually corresponds in no way whatsoever to the ordinary description of a stab, does it?

Killeen was faced with a woman who had more holes in her than a Swiss cheese. The respective amounts of stab and cut wounds did not encourage him to speak of a stab-and-cut murder. What he saw before his eyes was quite clearly an almighty number of stabbings, and since he could deduct that 38 of the wounds WERE stabs, he would of course not - especially since Jack had not entered the official arena yet - start pondering whether the abdominal wound could evince an urge to eviscerate. He was faced with an overwhelming statistical possibility that wound number 39 was just another stab gone wrong.

We have the edge on Killeen, though -for we KNOW that three weeks later, an abdominal mutilator and eviscerator was about to make his entrance in history, taking a very focused interest in the "lower part of the body" and CUTTING into it. Make the assumption that Tabram had been killed three weeks AFTER Polly Nicholls, Sam, and THEN tell me that the doctors would have laughed away that abdominal wound. I don´t think so!

What we need to do, is to take advantage of the fact that Killeen did realize that there was a significantly different wound on the lower abdomen of Tabram, and that he - thank God! - noted it for posterity. We should also be thankful for the courage that led him to state that there were two blades involved in the killing.

What we should not be too keen on, however, is his pinning things down to a 39-stab killing. When he did so, it was the logical thing to do. But three weeks later, that was all very radically changed, was it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sam writes:

"He says "penetrated", not "cut""

Sam, for the Ripper to be able to cut his victims necks, the skin had to be penetrated first.

I'm not denying that, Fish - all I'm saying is that there are many different ways to penetrate... heck, the Indians even wrote a book about it

"he says "she was stabbed 39 times" not "she was stabbed 38 times and cut once"."

Yes. And then he adds that there was a wound at the lower body that was 3x1 inches. It would seem that this wound differed from the other ones in some respect.

And Killeen tells us why it differed - it's singled out because it was in "the lower body" and 3" long. It doesn't mean that it was a "cut" - and it's emphatically not a "rip". We don't even know where the wound was - it's DS Swanson's summary report, written a month or so later, that mentions "private part", not Killeen.

If this was Jack experimenting, don't you think that with that great wobbly expanse of Tabram's stomach exposed beneath her uplifted skirt, he'd have had a bloody good go at it? Instead, all we get is a "scrage", smaller even than Ellen Bury's abdominal wound, which in itself was far less penetrative than the wound to Elisabeth Stride's throat. If those comparisons don't put things in context, I don't know what will!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

If this was Jack experimenting, don't you think that with that great wobbly expanse of Tabram's stomach exposed beneath her uplifted skirt, he'd have had a bloody good go at it? Instead, all we get is a "scrage", smaller even than Ellen Bury's abdominal wound, which in itself was far less penetrative than the wound to Elisabeth Stride's throat. If those comparisons don't put things in context, I don't know what will!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"If this was Jack experimenting, don't you think that with that great wobbly expanse of Tabram's stomach exposed beneath her uplifted skirt, he'd have had a bloody good go at it?"

Absolutely, Sam. I think he would have cut all the way through, and opened her up and taken away her uterus - at the very least. This is what he needed to do, if you ask me, and I have always believed that he was not happy about things until after Chapman. I think he was interrupted with Nicholls, and found for good to abort - and I think he was interrupted with Tabram too.

But the fact of the matter is that we can easily isolate what may have interrupted him in Tabrams case - Tabram herself. We have Killeens assertion that she lived throughout the stabbing, and thus as Jack started cutting at the abdomen, he may have realized that she was not dead.
You know all of this, Sam, since I have told you so before. I think she cried out or did something that made him abort the mission, ensuring that she would not be able to pin him by thrusting his knife through the sternum and heart. Therefore we have the scenario we have, with two purposefully aimed and executed wounds made by a larger blade, and 37 smaller, unfocused, frenzied if you like, stab wounds. We can add logic to the inconsistencies.

And of course: don´t forget that each and every of the cuts dealt to the canonical throats and abdomens would have ended up "scrages" if they had been interrupted at their respective beginnings.
If that comparison don´t put things in context, I don´t know what will!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I think he would have cut all the way through, and opened her up and taken away her uterus - at the very least.

We don't know that he was anywhere near her uterus, Fish, and we don't even know that he cut her. As far as the killer's projected (speculated) intentions go - given the preponderance of wounds in her neck, should we suppose he was after her thyroid, too?

as Jack started cutting at the abdomen, he may have realized that she was not dead.

Why inflict 38 violent stab-wounds, when he could have slit her throat and carried on where he left off? Here was a man who was self-evidently interested in stabbing, not cutting - and I really don't understand why that's so hard to accept.

I can accommodate Tabram within my personal "canon" more easily than I can Stride (not that that says much), but I don't feel the need to make excuses for the George Yard killer's radically different technique. For radically different it most certainly was.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I do not think Tabram's killer was interrupted.
That is just a rubbish notion based on deperate attempts to fit her into the canon.

I am of the opinion, however, that the killer did what he needed to do with Tabram - maybe even more than he needed to or had expected to do (as in most frenzied killings) - and that he had no intention whatsoever to open her up or treat her like the other Ripper victims.
There are no evidence or even indications pointing in this direction.