Ripper Victim?

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate Jack,

Yes, but the Note on Marthas wounds does not say throat-cut, you may argue a partial list for Martha Tabram and what she was wearing, but in the case of Eddowes, she too was on the streets dressed with her belongings, yet with the Victims Eddowes & Chapman were listed as having a bodice ( victorian corset), so the authorities made a note of another victims clothing and mentioned the upper dress, Martha may or may not have had a corset on, she may have just had a shirt on for all we know.

Hi Shelley

We do have a very detailed list of what Eddowes was wearing and her possessions. However she was found in City police territory. Also as the Ripper scare became more heightened towards the end, I think more care and attention to detail was given.

However at the Nichols crime scene scant observation was given to detail. The body was stripped and the clothes dumped. Again I don’t feel detailed observations were created about things like clothing when documenting these earlier crime scenes.

So while it is a guess on my part I reckon on a cold night sleeping rough that Martha was fairly well prepared for the cold conditions. These women wore layers of clothing because they actually keep you warmer than one thick coat.

So yes I am guessing but I think it a good guess that Martha had on other layers under her dark dress and long black Jacket, which simply weren’t considered important enough to mention. The list of ‘outer clothing’ being recorded only for identification purpose, not as a clue to whether Jack was a STABBER or SLASHER.

Pirate

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam!

Let´s see here; when I wrote:

"To me, Tabram represents the perfect predecessor to Nicholls: The hesitating cut to the abdomen..."

You responded:

We don't know enough about it, Fish - neither whether it was hesitant, whether it was actually in the abdomen (as opposed to the crease of the thigh, say), nor even that it was a cut.

First and foremost, Sam: It WAS a cut. Maybe it was not INTENDED as one, but that is how it came out. When you enter your local hospital with a knife-produced wound of 3x1 inches, nobody is going to call it a stab. Likewise, the one thing you have going for your thesis is that all the other wounds to her body were stabs. But if Tabram - theoretically - had only been knocked over the head and supplied with that one wound to her lower body, then there would be no discussion on these boards about that cut actually being a stab. So no matter what the intention was, that knife cut Tabram, end of story.

We don´t know exactly where it was, no. But we DO know that she was found on her back, and that all of the other wounds could have been produced as she lay in that fashion. We also know that this wound was an isolated one, in fact the only one to the lower body. Therefore, a suggestion that it was a wound to the lower parts of the abdomen has a lot going for it.

Was it hesitant? God only knows. In my scenario it is, of course, and if it was put there by Jack, the same would apply. But it remains anybodys guess.


When I wrote:

"probably interrupted"

You replied:

"Probably? It's a possibility, no more - and a remote one, at best."

Once again, Sam, I am working from my scenario - which you of course realize. But I think that it can be argued with some emphasis that women with cut or opened-up abdomens, but with no organs taken away, may very well represent interrupted or botched Ripper jobs. I have already stated that my belief is that he did not return home a contended man until after the Chapman strike. In this context, there would have been an interruption. In other contexts, such as for example that with a one-man scenario, there is no need to believe so. It´s pretty obvious.

Finally, my sentence about:

"the ignorance about the practicality of silencing his victims"

led to your answer:

"That narrows our search down to the only man in England who didn't know that cutting someone's throat quickly was a good way to silence someone. A man so adaptable, however, that he cottoned onto the idea of deep throat-cutting within three weeks and took up "flesh carving" in preference to perforating his victims to death."

You got me there, semantically, Sam! It is not the question of ignorance as much as it is a question of him not having gone to work at Tabram with the realization that this knowledge may come in handy. He was a freshman still, and Tabram effectively showed him why the throatcutting business would be a superior manner to go about his job.
There! Better?

On the point that he took up fleshcarving as opposed to perforating, I would say no; What I have said all along is that the CUT to the lower part of her body may very well tell us that Tabram was faced with nothing but a fleshcarver! I count TWO Ripper wounds, no more - the first one very much in line with the agenda we know he worked by, the other one led on by panick, aborting the job. The true perforator had left George Yard buildings some time before.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman
__________________

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Professional throat cutting and evisceration of Polly,or of any of the other victims,is not in accordance with what some of the medical people stated.As Chava says,it doesn't take long to learn how to make two clean slashes across the throat,and I fail to see any professionalism in the mutulations to the bodies.

Not 'professional' in medical terms, but the Ripper mutilations are certainly more methodological and focused, and in some parts more controlled - as well as having a certain goal in mind - than the irregular stabbing we see on Tabram, where the killer appear to have been driven by frenzy.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"Oh come on! Give me a break."

I have been counting, Glenn, and I have reached the conclusion that we seem to give each other the exact same amount of breaks in the Tabram errand.
If you scratch my back...

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

Okay. Just been catching up on the 'posts'. H'm. Some people need to be less intense.

Nothing has changed my point of view. Killeen. The name but I'll keep quoting it. 2 weapons. Nothing anyone says will change that. There's nowhere else to go to dispute his report. Sorry. But that's a fact.

Jack going from stabbing Tabram to throttle/choke/strangle/ Nicholls, lower to the ground, slash throat away from him, rip the abdomen.
Not the same killer. And there was only one Jack. He didn't have a sidekick, loser coach driver, whatever. Jack worked by himself. He stalked by himself. He murdered by himself.

[harry]

The following was from a report from London to an overseas destination,dated September 27 1888. The latest butchery in England has formed the subject of much talk at the police central office.The universal theory was that the perpetratorof the mysterious murders was certainly a 'Crank' whose aim seemed to be to destroy the lives of fallen women. The latest if not the most fiendish of the four mysterious london butcheries,was the killing of Emily Annie Chapman,also known as dark annie,at the rear of no 29,Hanbury st,Spitafields.The second case was that in which an unfortunate was found at George Yard Building.Then came the brutal murder and mutilation of a mrs Nicholls in Bucks Row. Probably,said superintendent Murray,"the murderous fellows mind had been made morbid by some loathsome disease.Inspector Steer(name may be a little different as the print was bad)had little to say,but what he said was very much to the point,"Two months since these murders began,and the villain still at large.What has become of Scotland yard's(last two words unidentifiable.It seems clear from the above that Tabrab was considered in police circles,to be very much a victim of the person who killed Nicholls and Chapman.A little mystery though is Steer's? comment about the murders having started two months previously.That would be July.

[Nothing to see]

Hi. I've read your reply but I'm sorry you've lost me.

[Fisherman]

Harry!

Interesting reading, thanks! On the issue of "two months", it can be added that August 6 to September 27 is a time span of a stiff 7 weeks, so "two months" is not useless as a rough estimation if Steer counted Tabram as the true starting point - and it seems he did.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

Chapman, Tabram, Nicholls. Check your calendars.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I was not able to publish the whole transmission,but it appears the sender was in conversation with both officers at the same time,and as I have written on another thread,Murray's remark was 'months previous'.The conversation was certainly towards the end of the month of September as the Gateshead murder was mentioned.27 September was in the heading.I do not think Steer? was thinking of Tabram,as in the report she is mentioned as the second victim,But who knows?
Regards.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, Harry. I was, though, under the impression that Murray was the one pushing Tabram as victim number two, and maybe there never was any overall consensus in the force - just as there is no such thing on these boards...

The best,
Fisherman

[Chava]

One thing about the Kosher abbatoir, they would frighten the animal first to get the blood pumping quicker, when the throat was cut of the animal lots of blood poured out from the animals neck, they needed to drain all the blood from the animal, as with Jewish law no consuming of any blood was allowed, eggs were always broken open, any blood spots in the sack/membrane of the egg were removed. Jews never did eat boiled eggs. This had been practised for thousands of years, also recorded in the bible. A character from the bible who was Jewish didn't ensure blood draining of his meat, for this God punished him by ' cutting him off ' from the word of The Lord God. Also i wonder if they did crash courses in the Kosher region rather than the SAS for getting past a membrane in a human abdomin to obtain a womb! Also would this Kosher butcher also teach how an animal that wears clothing that stabbing isn't going to do the trick, so he finds out from the Kosher butcher how to mutilate underneath clothing? Amazing all in a space of 3 & 4 weeks!

Shelley I've restrained myself for a long time about your posts. But that? Is ignorant repulsive bs. We don't 'frighten animals' we're not allowed to do so. We cut the throat and drain the blood, but the blood drains just fine from the severed arteries of the neck. We are specifically forbidden to cause the animal more pain and fear than necessary. We don't 'break all eggs to look for blood spots', however if we observe a blood spot in an egg we throw it away. As for 'Jews never did eat boiled eggs', on what planet did you grow up on that you learned that? In your honour am eating a boiled egg as I write this. And I am a Jew that observes kashruth.

[Shelley]

Hi Shelley

We do have a very detailed list of what Eddowes was wearing and her possessions. However she was found in City police territory. Also as the Ripper scare became more heightened towards the end, I think more care and attention to detail was given.

However at the Nichols crime scene scant observation was given to detail. The body was stripped and the clothes dumped. Again I don’t feel detailed observations were created about things like clothing when documenting these earlier crime scenes.

So while it is a guess on my part I reckon on a cold night sleeping rough that Martha was fairly well prepared for the cold conditions. These women wore layers of clothing because they actually keep you warmer than one thick coat.

So yes I am guessing but I think it a good guess that Martha had on other layers under her dark dress and long black Jacket, which simply weren’t considered important enough to mention. The list of ‘outer clothing’ being recorded only for identification purpose, not as a clue to whether Jack was a STABBER or SLASHER.

Pirate

Pirate Jack,
I have to disagree with you here, the city police often helped the Metropolitain police, so thier details wouldn't be any different and i'll tell you why ' Chapman ' was listed as having 2 bodices ( corsets) Chapman was under the durisdiction of the Met, not the city police. Also Tabram would have been wearing what she could afford, but having said that she would ensure layers of clothing for survival, this does not neccessarily mean that she had indeed a corset(Bodice). My guess is, Tabram wasn't dressed the same as a standard woman would have in those days, so because she didn't have a bodice, they just left it out, this is my theory, and of course you have yours, as there was such a thing as respect for the dead, but neither of us really knows what her top half of her body was clothed in. Also Doctor's didn't do an examination with the deceased's clothes on, how are you going to find a lung, or a liver etc in the obscurity of the body being clothed, it wasn't the practice of the doctors.

[Ben]

Jack going from stabbing Tabram to throttle/choke/strangle/ Nicholls, lower to the ground, slash throat away from him, rip the abdomen.
Not the same killer.

History, experience, and expert insight and background on the topic prevents us from making those sorts of pronouncements, alas. In fact, it tells us that the reverse is much more likely to be true.

[Shelley]

Shelley I've restrained myself for a long time about your posts. But that? Is ignorant repulsive bs. We don't 'frighten animals' we're not allowed to do so. We cut the throat and drain the blood, but the blood drains just fine from the severed arteries of the neck. We are specifically forbidden to cause the animal more pain and fear than necessary. We don't 'break all eggs to look for blood spots', however if we observe a blood spot in an egg we throw it away. As for 'Jews never did eat boiled eggs', on what planet did you grow up on that you learned that? In your honour am eating a boiled egg as I write this. And I am a Jew that observes kashruth.

Chava,
So you go against Educational Documentaries and what they teach about Jews, and do you still insist that in the middle-east they are humane towards humans, when stoning to death is still upheld? Chava, from what i've learned you are a very odd Jew, also if your parents are Jewish, are they also aware that you engage in such morbid activity in Ripperology, as correct me if i am wrong any where Chava please do ' A dead body is unclean ' and i can't see that a practising faith of Judaism will allow you to engage in areas that are disrespectful of the dead, still there are jews who do not practise thier faith, so fall wayward.....7 sins only allowed to tot up. Also try and correct this if i'm wrong Chava in the middle-east a person having any involvement or coming into contact with a dead body ( unless you are the Rabbi carrying the correct type of say ' priesthood ' to come into contact with a dead body for the purpose of washing ritually down a dead body ready for burial), Jews usually refrain from speaking to such people if they can avoid it, if any speaking is done it will be a head rabbi that covers his community, then he acts as spokes person, they also stone those out in the middle-east for having engaged in archeology and digging up dead bones of people, as this is considered a henious sacralige.
I've never heard such a thing, humane way of killing animals! When they stoned people to death & still do in regions of the world, Certain animals were to be eaten such as all those with a cloven hooved foot . Also the animal sacrifices they still practice today ' a kind of scapegoat for the communities minor sins ' in different regions of the world, a description in the bible ( also one witness account and i knew the witness personally, when he was out of the country and in armenia saw an animal being sacrified for sins, the blood ran out on to a stone, this is common and traditional practice, this stone was a shallow bath, so that the animal could be bled) So much for your humanity when Jews still practice blood atonement of stoning humans because of sins. Chava i have spoken to Jews, i have researched stuff from the jewish faith, also the Mormon church in Brigham Young's time did indeed use the blood atonement of Judaism and not the one from Christianity, Brigham was a psychopath, the jewish blood atonement came handy for him to use humans the same way as atonement for animals, he slit thier throats and left them dying in a ditch.
My guess is you are not a practising Jew and know little of it, or you are not Jewish period!
I'll contact my friend and see what her Jewish friend has to say about what you've just posted........And Chava, i know i'm not wrong! Also i have studied the Jewish passover and know exactly how to celebrate it and i know the actual meaning of it since it contains meaning only when you practice it.
So now what do you say Chava, your humane animal slaughter version, in comparision to Humans still being stoned to death in the middle-east!