Ripper Victim?

[CLK]

Im still new to this and I am taking your advice. Thank you all. Im glad I can discuss this with someone because everyone else I know will not listen to me any more.

[Chava]

In answer to Glenn, I started the other thread mainly for people who do believe that Tabram was the first victim. If she was, there is much that might be learned from her. So, to me, it's not an 'is she or isn't she?' thread.

Now to address the issue of Dr Killeen. Those of us who live in Canada, especially in Ontario, learned the hard way that you cannot always trust forensic opinion. Dr Charles Smith taught us that. Dr Killeen was inexperienced. I am not suggesting he was wrong. But I do think that he may well have misinterpreted evidence. If the soldier did kill Tabram, I can't see his pal chiming in with a strike of his own. The wounds might have distorted to present the appearance of two blades. Killeen's issue, if I recall correctly, was that the knife used to stab could not have pierced bone. If there are any forensics guys on the board, perhaps they could help out here?

[Sam Flynn]

I can only repeat the argument that those stabs that Killeen didn't specified most likely were not hitting any specific organs but just flesh and tissue and therefore he didn't specify them.

That's my interpretation also, Glenn. It's possible, given that Killeen specifically mentions only one wound to the "lower part of the body", that these unspecified stabs were - like the majority of the others - located in the upper half of the body.

[Sam Flynn]

Dr Killeen was inexperienced.

To be fair to Killeen, he at least estimated a fairly uncontroversial time of death! No mean feat, when one considers the controversies that rage elsewhere in the case

[perrymason]

Yes there is, Mike.

Loads and loads of it.

All I need to do is provide evidence aplenty from other serial cases demonstrating that serial killers do go through an exploratory, learning phase, and that the first offences of many a serial killer will bear little or no resemblence to their later ones. Then I point out that even if Tabram was a ripper victim, JTR would still be categorized as a consistent serial killer in comparison to most. Then I'd remind all and sundry that the weapon choice, timing, location, and victimonolgy are all perfectly consistent with their successors.

The majority of contemporary investigative personal were inclined to include her in the series, and they included Abberline, Anderson and Reid. To argue that Macnaghten's views carry more weight that the three of them, despite the fact that the last mentioned wasn't actively involved in the investigation at the time of the murders, is simply outlandish. Bond didn't even expressly rule out Tabram; he simply stated that the five victims whose autopsy notes he studied fell victim to the same perpetrator. He didn't include the "only" prefix as Macnaghten did.

So that's the weight of contemporary investigative clout in favour of her inclusion, coupled with the fact that no known expert in serial crime has ever argued the case for her exclusion. They know better from experience. That's more than adequate grounds for including Tabram, and if I'm to be respected less for reminding people of what ought to be Mickey Mouse stuff for anyone who has read up properly on serial crime, I almost care.

Ben,

On last post to address your comments....although you like citing other killers as some insight on this supposed one....there is no reference base applicable for these crimes during those times. So forget offering modern serial killer knowns....we only have those stories because those killers were known. So.....youre wrong Ben....there is NO evidence that supports your suggestions.

The Ripper Group is known as THE CANONICAL FIVE victims...regardless of what investigators thought personally in reflections. Check this site if you doubt that.

The only thing studies of serial killers offers us is potential questions to ask of the evidence....because the men who study them already know the guilt of their subjects.

Not only do we not know who, how many or why Jack the Ripper....(a pen name not a human being),... killed, we have reasons in the form of evidence to discount at least one of their assumed Canonicals with known existing data.

Until ANY valid explanation surfaces regarding Martha Tabram....in 120 years none have so far....but if just one pops up someday, then Ill entertain her inclusion.

This thread is just typing exercise...not real problem solving on any level.

Cheers Ben...and I am deleting my subscription to this, so please dont use that as a checkered flag for posting something I will not see or reply to.

Theres enough other people here who think this is ridiculous also...so you can discuss with them further.

[Shelley]

I didn't spot it, Shelley.
I blame my third glass of red wine.

At the moment, editing my posts takes longer than writing them.

All the best

Ah Well! At least it wasn't Spanish Brandy.........I'm off to watch another programme of ' The Victorians '...Bye for now.

Cheers
Shelley

[Shelley]

Im still new to this and I am taking your advice. Thank you all. Im glad I can discuss this with someone because everyone else I know will not listen to me any more.

CLK,
No worries, we all have to start somewhere, even the ripperologists of note had to work with not so informative notes, made mistakes themselves and changed thier minds, came up on confusion as well themselves...Don't worry, anyone not prepared to listen is lacking in patience. Glenn is good at listening and explaining things....So i've given you a good lead.
All the Best
Love Ya
Shelley

[Ben]

On last post to address your comments....although you like citing other killers as some insight on this supposed one....there is no reference base applicable for these crimes during those times.

Yes, there is.

It serves to trash the theory that Tabram should be excluded on the basis of her being supposedly too "different". History and experience says no, we're not entitled to make assumptions like that. It informs us that serial killers who are otherwise perfectly consistent in their technique, are perfectly capable of deviating to an appreciable degree, especially when it comes to their earlier murders. If Tabram was the first of Jack's murders, he'd still be a consistent serial killer in contrast to most. Them's the facts.

So forget offering modern serial killer knowns....we only have those stories because those killers were known.

Yes, and lucky they have been, or else many of us would still be persisting in ignorance by making impossible-to-justify pronouncements about the habits of serial killers. And no, incidentally, there is no reason to think I'm wrong, and plenty of evidence to support my suggestions.

The Ripper Group is known as THE CANONICAL FIVE victims

And?

That wasn't a contemporary or officially-coined police term, nor was it a majority-endorsed opinion, then or now. Are you seriously suggesting that we champion a modern contruct over the views actually endorsed by thsoe investigating the murders at the time? I note with interest that you reject two of the "canonical five" anyway.

killed, we have reasons in the form of evidence to discount at least one of their assumed Canonicals with known existing data.

That's just your opinion. You might interpret the evidence as being sufficient to discount a particular victim, but many others would disagree very strongly.

Theres enough other people here who think this is ridiculous also...so you can discuss with them further.

With the majority of contemporary investigators and pretty much every expert in criminology under the sun on my side, I'm not going to be overly saddended by the conflicting views of anyone here. That's not to say I don't respect them, but you pay your money and take your choice. I've every reason to believe I've spent wisely.

[Shelley]

In answer to Glenn, I started the other thread mainly for people who do believe that Tabram was the first victim. If she was, there is much that might be learned from her. So, to me, it's not an 'is she or isn't she?' thread.

Now to address the issue of Dr Killeen. Those of us who live in Canada, especially in Ontario, learned the hard way that you cannot always trust forensic opinion. Dr Charles Smith taught us that. Dr Killeen was inexperienced. I am not suggesting he was wrong. But I do think that he may well have misinterpreted evidence. If the soldier did kill Tabram, I can't see his pal chiming in with a strike of his own. The wounds might have distorted to present the appearance of two blades. Killeen's issue, if I recall correctly, was that the knife used to stab could not have pierced bone. If there are any forensics guys on the board, perhaps they could help out here?

Chava,

In all fairness, the wounding to Tabram could possibly have been done by 1 weapon, it is also a possibility that the woundings plus the 1 wound to the heart could have been done by two weapons. Either 1 weapon or 2 weapons it does not mean there were 2 attackers to tabram because the theory of 2 weapons holds down in 1 mind, or even 2 attackers together with 1 weapon in theory of another mind. We do have to go through what evidence there is at present to hand. Fisherman mentioned the scavenger theory, but what if someone mentioned having taken that same theory, but used a pissed of wife who followed Tabram to have it out with her for soliciting her husband and thus we have a female scavenger, then maybe Jill the Ripper fits as well.
Theories are at best just theories, but it is getting a theory to work with ' likely ' and ' evidence ', not brushing the evidence aside. All Doctors that are new into the game are classed as inexperienced, but this does not mean to say that they would not be fit to carry the work out. Dr Bagster Phillips would have been classed as inexperienced at one time also, so we are to give up on all Doctors who are just new into practice having once achieved thier qualifications are we? I have no doubts whatsoever that at the inquest Dr Killeen had already conversed with another Doctor, or Doctors who were more experienced than he, this is how doctors work in order to gain more knowledge to further thier career, so the report that Dr Killeen gave at the inquest is as good as an experienced Doctor. Point taken Chava, but all professionals make mistakes, however they do discuss and argue at the same time, and this is also my point that Dr Killeen giving his report at the inquest, was in the same view as that of a doctor that was experienced, so this doesn't hold any water Chava.

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"Even if you want to make sure that the victim is dead by cutting deep in order to severe the windpipe and the vessels, there is no need to turn to such drastic overkill and cut the throats so deep that the head is hardly attached to the neck.
It most certainly goes beyond any practical purpose and it also takes a longer amount of time than necessary. There can be no doubt that this element is of much deeper importance to the killer and that he actually found it worth taking risks for.

Hence, it should be reckoned as a vital part of his signature as well as his MO (the latter since the throat cut was the cause of death)."

Glenn, I have said this before. Although you and I know that he did not need to cut all the way to the bone to ensure death and silence, we cannot say whether the Ripper knew this! How deep did he have to cut to sever the windpipe totally? Two inches? Three inches? Three and a half?
You see, Glenn, the simplest method by far to MAKE SURE that you took windpipe and arteries along with you as you cut, was to cut to the maximum depth!
Most of us agree - and I know that you do so - that Jack showed nothing that proved that he had anatomical knowledge to any greater extent. Then why should we accept that he would be able to estimate what depth he needed to cut the necks to?

He did it to kill, just as you say. I agree with that. But I would also propose that his main intention was to silence, since that was of vital importance to him to go any further undetected.

Your point that it would take longer time is useless, I fear, since the extra time could be counted in split seconds, and since he may well have been prepared to take that extra time to ensure death and silence one hundred per cent.

Thus I will not agree that the neck-cutting carried anything but practical implications. I will only add that it would be strange if he felt as compelled to open up throats as he did when it came to the abdominal region.

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No no no, Fisherman. I don't agree with that at all, and I explained why in that post you quoted.
The throat wound goes way beyond what's necessary from a practical point of view and to state otherwise is just plain ridiculous.
Even a total amateur would know that you don't have to cut the throat to the extent that it hardly hangs together with the rest of the neck in order to silence or kill a victim. It's nonsense, like most Tabram arguments. All I see is more and more far-fetched and desperate arguments in order to include her in the canon.

All the best

[Chava]

Point taken Chava, but all professionals make mistakes, however they do discuss and argue at the same time, and this is also my point that Dr Killeen giving his report at the inquest, was in the same view as that of a doctor that was experienced, so this doesn't hold any water Chava.

Sorry but you are losing me again. Did Killeen say that he had checked with a more experienced colleague? If so, who?

[Shelley]

Sorry but you are losing me again. Did Killeen say that he had checked with a more experienced colleague? If so, who?

Chava,
Dr Killeen did not report or make record of it, they usually don't either, knowing a Doctor myself, knowing that she came from a long line of doctor's they have always done that ( by Tradition). Also student Doctor's who have graduated and gone into the field, also keep connections with thier mentor if they had respected them greatly, usually the mentor is a well-know Doctor himself who has aspired further up the ranks. I also have a cousin myself who is a surgeon. This is common practice Chava and always has been, it's almost the same as asking for a recording or a report about a fish named 'Blue 'who breathes oxygen from the water, and asking how do you know Blue breathes oxygen from water, where's the report, or recording of it to substansiate it.

Hope that helps Chava

[Fisherman]

Glenn persists:

"The throat wound goes way beyond what's necessary from a practical point of view and to state otherwise is just plain ridiculous."

Sorry, mate, but I will have to disagree very strongly with you. What you are sayin basically, is that you would have wanted the cutter to stop halfways through the neck to make it credible that it was nothing but a practicality. But that is only a logical stance if we accept that the deeper cutting takes a lot more work or effort, and the simple truth of the matter is that it does not.

A boxer does not diminish the power of his punch just because he thinks half the power will be enough to knock his opponent out. A swordfighter chops the head off although chopping halfways would kill his enemy. When the task of going all the way is just as easy as that of pulling our punches, we often do so. With a sharp knife and the correct leverage, cutting the neck to the bones of these women was not a harder task than cutting it halfways, and taking the risk of not getting the job done properly.
So this suggestion is in no way far-fetched or desperate - it is a quite reasonable suggestion the way I see things. The only desperation about seems to me to lie in the efforts on your behalf to stop me from having the suggestion recognized for what it is, Glenn!

All the best from a drowsy
Fisherman,
headed for bed

[Shelley]

Glenn persists:

"The throat wound goes way beyond what's necessary from a practical point of view and to state otherwise is just plain ridiculous."

Sorry, mate, but I will have to disagree very strongly with you. What you are sayin basically, is that you would have wanted the cutter to stop halfways through the neck to make it credible that it was nothing but a practicality. But that is only a logical stance if we accept that the deeper cutting takes a lot more work or effort, and the simple truth of the matter is that it does not.

A boxer does not diminish the power of his punch just because he thinks half the power will be enough to knock his opponent out. A swordfighter chops the head off although chopping halfways would kill his enemy. When the task of going all the way is just as easy as that of pulling our punches, we often do so. With a sharp knife and the correct leverage, cutting the neck to the bones of these women was not a harder task than cutting it halfways, and taking the risk of not getting the job done properly.
So this suggestion is in no way far-fetched or desperate - it is a quite reasonable suggestion the way I see things. The only desperation about seems to me to lie in the efforts on your behalf to stop me from having the suggestion recognized for what it is, Glenn!

All the best from a drowsy
Fisherman,
headed for bed

Fisherman,

With the above statement then with no more force of the cutting of the neck as you imply, why didn't the killer decapitate the head? As Nicholls head was almost severed, so was Chapman's for that matter. Simple reason, he did apply more force in the cutting of the neck beyond the point that is neccessary to render the victim dead, as Glenn has pointed out several times before now, but stopped at a complete decapitation....That's judgement being processed by the killer.
Also i knew a guy who could punch a man's lights out and break the nose if he wanted to with one punch, he also punched a guy once and only caused a nosebleed and bruising, no nose breaking and not a punch to knock him out lights and all, he was a boxer himself ( real life occurrances and he is aged now about 82 yrs old).