Ripper Victim?

[Shelley]

"The Ripper's main signature/post mortem mutilations seems to be throat cuts and disembowelling/abdiominal mutilation by ripping!"

Tabram's throat, abdomen and private parts were targeted like Nichols, Chapmen and Eddowes. She was also found on her back with her skirts pulled up and her legs apart. Is it possible the body position and the targeting on those areas was his signature and the disembowelling and mutilation by ripping was added later.

We do not know if Jack was trying to disembowel Nichols or was just mutilating her. The disembowelling could have been added with Chapmen.

CLK,
First, Dr Killeen stated that Martha was alive when she recieved stabbings, hence the pool of blood she was left in, this is not post-mortem, stabbing is not mutilation either. Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes private parts were not specifically targeted, they just happened to get in the way of his mutilation and opening the woman to obtain organs, with Nicholls she had several cuts running accross her abdomin, the killer's mind was on what lay beneath ( womb). Mutilation is not an addition, they are present in all three, Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes.
The lifting of skirts is attributed in many killings of different minded killers, and spreading of legs can be attributed in the same way of different minded killers. When a victims clothing is attributed as an MO factor, it is usually if removal of clothing from a victim and taken away from the crime scene. A victim could have taken off clothing by themselves while still alive, or clothing can be removed after death and taken away. This is also the case of when the killer leaves objects of his own possession behind. Lifting of skirts leaving the body fully or partially dressed without clothing taken away bears no relevance in MO. Don't forget that prior to Tabram's killing Emma Smith was attacked 4 months previously and she had her private parts attacked, in her own statement she was attacked by a gang of 4 men. In 1888 Emma Smith had been the first in a series of women killed that the police had to deal with, even JTR who had already developed his tastes for mutilation and evident in the victim Nicholls, this was the first victim of this kind, no one had heard of the signatures of such a killing before Martha or that of Emma Smith.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

CLK,
First, Dr Killeen stated that Martha was alive when she recieved stabbings, hence the pool of blood she was left in, this is not post-mortem...

I agree with this. There are no real evidence of any considerable post mortem activity in Tabram's case.

The lifting of skirts is attributed in many killings of different minded killers, and spreading of legs can be attributed in the same way of different minded killers.

Exactly. Quite correct.

All the best

[Nothing to see]

Tabram went off to have sex with a soldier, so it seems. She was murdered in the stairwell of a building that was very attainable by day and night.

She had 2 different knives used on her. Dr Killeen. He was there. Who else do we have? No-one.

I go with the doctor.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

So do I.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"We don't know that he was anywhere near her uterus, Fish, and we don't even know that he cut her."

We don´t, that´s correct. But since she was in all probability cut at the front of her body, and since it was placed on the lower part of it, we may conclude that stating that it need not have been anywhere near the uterus is somewhat drastic. I think you´ll agree on that, Sam!
Furthermore, there is no need for it to have been exactly over the uterus, since we cannot reasonably conclude that the killer knew the placing of any of the organs. If we satisfy ourselves with the notion that the wound was in all probability on the lower abdomen, that will do just fine.

"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."

Surely, Sam, you must be pulling my leg? I agree one hundred per cent that there was a stabber involved - but I do not think he produced all 39 wounds. I think he produced the unfocused flurry of 37 stabs, with a smallish blade. Then he left Tabram for dead, and Jack entered the scene in the scavenger´s role, producing two VERY focused and rational wounds - with a different blade. Don´t tell me this wiew of mine has slipped past you...?

"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"

Not killer, Sam - killers. Two blades point in a very emphatic manner to that possibility.
And much as I stand on your side when it comes to the inflicting of the 37 stabs made by the small blade, I think that if we isolate the two remaining wounds we get a different picture altogether, and a picture that speaks quite loudly of Jack at that. One exact, focused killing stab and one exact, focused cut to the lower parts of Tabram. That is an interpretation that most certainly can be thrown forward from what we know. And if this holds any water, we can forget about the enraged stabber - he was long gone as Jack started his work - and start focusing on the two wounds that may very well point to a rationally acting, very focused man with an agenda of cutting into the lower abdomen of a woman.

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Surely, Sam, you must be pulling my leg? I agree one hundred per cent that there was a stabber involved - but I do not think he produced all 39 wounds. I think he produced the unfocused flurry of 37 stabs, with a smallish blade. Then he left Tabram for dead, and Jack entered the scene in the scavenger´s role, producing two VERY focused and rational wounds - with a different blade. Don´t tell me this wiew of mine has slipped past you...?

So here we have a frustrated client who stabs her multiple times in a frenzy and then suddenly - by chance - Jack the Ripper comes along by accident and says: "Hey man, a dead woman - I think I might just try to use my knife for a while".
So not only do Tabram have the unfortune of coming across a violent client, she also happens to come across the soon-to-be serial killer while lying deceased on the floor.
Now, that's far-fetched to the extreme. Sorry, Fisherman, but that is Harry Potter stuff.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"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."

If I could have a penny for eact time you have dubbed things "rubbish" on these boards, I´d be a millionaire.
The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I can know for sure if it is rubbish - or a very viable suggestion. Being statistically unexpected does in no way equal being rubbish. Stating the opposite is rubbish though - and that can be proven!

"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"

That is a misconception, Glenn, since a cut-like wound to the abdomen is nothing BUT evidence of a possible intent to cut her open. Like I said before, it is in no way proof - but that is a different thing altogether!

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

That is a misconception, Glenn, since a cut-like wound to the abdomen is nothing BUT evidence of a possible intent to cut her open.

Fisherking.
It is no such thing. Absolutely not.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"So here we have a frustrated client who stabs her multiple times in a frenzy and then suddenly - by chance - Jack the Ripper comes along by accident and says: "Hey man, a dead woman - I think I might just try to use my knife for a while".
So not only do Tabram have the unfortune of coming across a violent client, she also happens to come across the soon-to-be serial killer while lying deceased on the floor.
Now, that's far-fetched to the extreme. Sorry, Fisherman, but that is Harry Potter stuff."

I have chosen the hard path on this matter, Glenn, and I have foreseen that I will have to finance a lot of laughter and scorning on behalf of many a poster. It does not affect me in the least, though - it is sometimes the price you have to pay if you want to stand by your convictions. It´s all good and well to say "Rubbish - it swears against statistics and logics, and therefore it cannot be true". As long as we do not have the truth at hand, you will be home and dry, and most Ripperologists will side with you. That, though, does in no way mirror what happened - it only mirrors that most people can see the statistical advantages in your stance.

But you are going to be asked about why the wound to the lower abdomen was there, isolated from all the other wounds. And you are going to be asked why that wound - of all wounds - came out as a cut. And you are going to be asked why there were two blades involved. And you are going to be asked why it was a silent deed IN SPITE of the fact that there may have been two men involved in the wounding. And you are going to be asked why all of this occurred a mere three weeks before Jack officially entered the stage. And you are going to be asked, Glenn, not to call a suggestion that you can in no way disprove, and that has the merit of explaining all of these questions, "rubbish" or "Harry Potter stuff". The Ripper himself is Bogey Man stuff - haven´t you noticed?

The best, my doubtful friend!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:
"It is no such thing. Absolutely not"

Then tell me, Glenn - was there not a 3x1 inch wound to the lower part of the body? And if so, why does it NOT belong to the evidence?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

BUT, they are only a PART of the already displayed fantasy - namely to cut their throats very deep and mutilate them by cutting and ripping them up (and take one or two organs if possible).

But we don't know that his signature was anywhere near as specific as that from the outset. His signature may well have been generalized attacking of prostitutes with a knife and continuing that knife attack post-mortem. In which case, facial mutilations are just as much a natural progression of the signature as deep throat cuts and organ-pinching were. He was simply learning "on the job", and gaining new insights as he expermiented. That's what serial killers do. They don't plan every aspect of the murder and mutilation in meticulous detail and get in spot on the first time. Most do the precise opposite, and when we consider that most serialists' first attacks will bear little resmeblence to later, more "consistent" murders, we're left with no reason ro tule Tabram out on that basis.

If Tabram was the first actual murder, then if anything we should be surprised that the murder so closely resembled the later ones in terms of weapon choice, time, location and victimology, with stabbing-to-stashing being a ludicrously minor and irrelevent change in comparison to most.

We can't simply decide on whim which elements were part of his fantasy from day #1 and which elements were simply "additions" borne out of practice. For all we know, organ-pinching and deep throat cuts could easily have belonged in the latter catergory.

Best regards,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Fisherman,

There was a 3X1 inch wound cut to the lower part of the body.
But not with any stretch of the imagination can that be interpreted as 'evidence' of an attempt to rip her up.
Nor is there any 'evidence' of that the killer was interrupted in anyway, as has been suggested.

All the best

[Roy Corduroy]

From the official police files. Inspector Reid report Aug 16 - Pearly Poll said she and Martha were with two soldiers. She went up Angel Court with the corporal, and Martha went up George Yard with the private.

PC Barrett reports talking to a soldier at the end of George yard who was waiting for his mate. You would think that would be the corporal, waiting on the private who went up George Yard with Martha, but NO Barrett says he spoke to a private.

Would anyone care to comment on the discrepancy?

Roy

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"There was a 3X1 inch wound cut to the lower part of the body.
But not with any stretch of the imagination can that be interpreted as 'evidence' of an attempt to rip her up."

This, Glenn, is probably ab battle of semantics. The cut belongs to the evidence, and it is free for anybody to interpret that piece of evidence however he or she wants. I say it may point to an intent to open her up. Therefore this suggestion is a suggestion supported by evidence existing.
If you do not allow me to use this piece of evidence to support my scenario, then that should be supported by you being able to conclusively prove that I could not possibily be right. Let me assure you - that may prove a handful, Glenn...

The best,
Fisherman

You seem to be discussing proof, Glenn, and that is another thing altogether.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

If Tabram was the first actual murder, then if anything we should be surprised that the murder so closely resembled the later ones, with stabbing-to-stashing being a ludicrously minor and irrelevent change in comparison to most.

The crux is, ben, that they don't resemble each other one bit in any way, not in any element.

We can't simply decide on whim which elements were part of his fantasy from day #1 and which elements were simply "additions" borne out of practice. For all we know, organ-pinching and deep throat cuts could easily have belonged in the latter catergory.

So you say, but the fact that all of the Ripper victims had their throat cuts very deeply (with the possible exception of Stride) and that two of the canonical ones (three if we accept that Nichol's killer may have been interrupted or was too inexperienced at that time; four if we include Kelly) had been disembowelled in some way certainly suggests that those elements ARE in fact the basic important signature of the killer since they appear in all of them.
It's simply a matter of seeing what connects them and what don't. And facial mutilations certainly is not one such combining element tjhroughout the series, but a mere later additon.

All the best