Ripper Victim?

[Ben]

You're comparing Tabram's wounds to Nicholls' and concluding they are similar. They're not. Jack ripped. Jack used one knife. Tabram was stabbed.

...Which is a very circular argument, NTS.

You can't make assertions as to what "Jack" did on the basis of the victims you've already excluded and then use them to rule out...well, the victims you've already excluded. If Tabram was killed by Jack, then Jack stabbed as well as ripper (we need only examin Nichols and Eddowes to understand that he'd capable of both), and if that's the case, he'd be pretty much in sinc with what we know about serial killers, i.e. that stabbing to stab/slashing is a woefully minor alternation.

[Nothing to see]

Actually I believe it was an axe suggested at the Kelly murder scene, but I cant fund the source at present.

I think your wrong about Swanson, as far as I'm aware he included Martha Tabram in the series.

There was ripping...3" long 1" deep, thats a rip.

We don't have the original autopsie report however its possible information was held back from the press.

In all other respects times, date, age, location, etc. Martha a fits the pattern.

Plus her killing sticks out as particularly unusual.

Plus most experts I have spoken to seem to suggest Martha as a possible Ripper victim.

Pirate

You're right. An axe. Thanks for that. Swanson includes Tabram? You will share, I'm sure.

Martha's murder is different. You're correct. Because it wasn't by Jack.

[Sam Flynn]

Thats interesting Sam. Are you saying that, there was less blood than would be expected?

No - only that a "pool" of blood was described, not splashes on the walls nor spray extending beyond the body. That there was possibly only a pool of blood suggests blood flowing/oozing out of the body, rather than jetting from it, which one would expect if the carotids had been severed by one or more of the stab wounds.

Would this not suggest that the heart was targeted earlier in the attack?

It might well do.

Learning curve being best to cut the throat first.

Jeff, no "learning curves" are needed to know that. The slitting of the throat as a swift means of dispatch has been common knowledge since the dawn of humankind.

[Jeff Leahy]

...Which is a very circular argument, NTS.

You can't make assertions as to what "Jack" did on the basis of the victims you've already excluded and then use them to rule out...well, the victims you've already excluded. If Tabram was killed by Jack, then Jack stabbed as well as ripper (we need only examin Nichols and Eddowes to understand that he'd capable of both), and if that's the case, he'd be pretty much in sinc with what we know about serial killers, i.e. that stabbing to stab/slashing is a woefully minor alternation.

Actually you can probably going further than that Ben and state that a stab is the first stage of a slash...

If you want to make a good deep SLASH you must firstly STAB the knife into the flesh...so they sort of go hand in hand. or at least you cant Slash without first STABBING

Which is what the pattern appears to show.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

The slitting of the throat as a swift means of dispatch has been common knowledge since the dawn of humankind.

There is all the difference in the world between knowing something and experiencing it.

Cheers Sam.Pirate

[Ben]

Very good point, Jeff.

A near perfect progression, certainly in the context of other serial cases (whihc, yes, I will continue to go on about if people are hellbent on ex-cathedra pronouncement to the effect that Jack didn't kill Tabram because she was stabbed, not slashed. My giddy aunt! )

[Sam Flynn]

stabbing to stab/slashing is a woefully minor alternation.

Ben - I have to pick you up on two things there.

Firstly, "woefully minor" is a bit optimistic. The means of executing a stab versus a cut are completely different, as are the physical sensations experienced by the perpetrator of the deed.

Secondly, "Jack" did not transition to "stab/slashing" - no matter how often one repeats that phrase, it does not make it an accurate description of the subsequent murders.

As a nickname, "Sid the Stabber" simply would not have worked for all sorts of reasons - chief among them being that it would not have reflected faithfully what Jack actually did.

[Sam Flynn]

There is all the difference in the world between knowing something and experiencing it.

No rocket-science needed to know how to cut a throat, Jeff. One certainly wouldn't go about it by imprinting a series of "cut along dotted-line" wounds into someone's neck.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jack would have had know choice but to be a Sid in his early attacks.He was still targeting the torso and Ripping through clothing simply would have been impossible..

only as he learns to lift the skirts does Jack teh Ripper become possible but a man with two names he well could have been.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

No rocket-science needed to know how to cut a throat, Jeff. One certainly wouldn't go about it by imprinting a series of "cut along dotted-line" wounds into someone's neck.

The things we remember the things we know to be true are things that we have experienced. You can tell someone something all you like. You can read books search the internet, you can ask questions and come to a logical conclusion...but you dont know nothin till you've experienced it.

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

The things we remember the things we know to be true are things that we have experienced. You can tell someone something all you like.

Cutting a neck is rather the same as cutting any material that might put up similar resistance to the tissues of the throat - such as a joint of beef, or the stem of a cabbage. Just because it's a "neck" doesn't mean it's made of an exotic form of matter.

You can read books search the internet, you can ask questions and come to a logical conclusion...but you dont know nothin till you've experienced it.

We're talking about a CUT throat, for God's sake. Sod books and bugger the Internet... we ALL know how to CUT. Nothing personal, Jeff, but the sorts of (non-)arguments typically wheeled out to add unwarranted "mystique" or "specialism" into the Ripper case really irritate me.



(Edit: the above "cut throats" refer to Polly Nichols, and umpteen myriads of others who died from similar wounds throughout history. Just thought I'd make that clear.)

[Jeff Leahy]

Cutting a neck is rather the same as cutting any material that might put up similar resistance to the tissues of the throat - such as a joint of beef, or the stem of a cabbage. Just because it's a "neck" doesn't mean it's made of an exotic form of matter.We're talking about a CUT throat, for God's sake. Sod books and bugger the Internet... we ALL know how to CUT. Nothing personal, Jeff, but the sorts of (non-)arguments typically wheeled out to add unwarranted "mystique" or "specialism" into the Ripper case really irritate me.

(Edit: the above "cut throats" refer to Polly Nichols, and umpteen myriads of others who died from similar wounds throughout history. Just thought I'd make that clear.)

Hey its you turning jack into some sort of mythical terminator.

How can the experience of cutting a piece of meat be in anyway related to cutting another human beings throat?

It just strikes me as obvious that they would be very different EXPERIENCES both psychologically and physically.

The experience of something requires the use of all your senses and emotions at once.

Pirate

[perrymason]

I will point out that this thread has so far been responsible for producing many speculative statements made out as facts, and some pretty untenable ideas.

Martha was stabbed to death with 2 weapons being used, and she has no money on her when found....and she was not abdominally "mutilated"

That matches 2 of 3 earlier crimes.. including one that involved multiple assailants, and 0 of 2 future ones.As hers could have been, multiple assailants....based on the 2 separate wounds in size and depth, and the concept that stabbing the woman while another perhaps choked her is within the interpretative bounds of the known details.

Nice explanations on how performing acts that are very similar with each other before Polly's death translates to an evolving killer that is "learning" on Martha... but miraculously with no further "training" kills, he kills his next victim using a brand new fully evolved iteration that he will now use to perform 2 murders unlike all the priors, in a row...perhaps 3,.. if he didnt kill Liz Stride....and theres no legitimate reason for assuming he did......and earned the nickname that people still use to describe a group of women murderer in late 1888.

And we all know that wasnt Jack the Stabber, or Jack the Thief, or Jack the Gang member.

You have a consistent repetitive sequence of mutilation murders that follow an inconsistent pattern of stabbings and robberies. You might think such a defined line means he woke up Aug 30th, and, like a human transformer became suddenly capable of and and interested in slitting throats only after they are on the ground, and likely before any cuts, or stabs, are made...and also of removing abdominal organs intact within 10 days.

Did the guy who mutilates abdomens start acting out in some way before becoming the abdominal mutilator The Ripper? Sure, why not. Are stabbing and excising warm organs even similar acts...not to me personally.

Based on actual evidence in the form of medical opinion and his likely knowledge base, this guy may have cut or stabbed pigs or cadavers before Mary Ann's murder,.. but he didnt take any interest in stabbing, and we dont know that he robbed any of his victims. Only 2 Canonicals really have unexplained coin loss when they are found...and Martha as a "non-Can".

Martha was stabbed only, and perhaps robbed. Like earlier stab/robbing victims that spring.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Hey its you turning jack into some sort of mythical terminator.

Far from it. He was a throat-cutter, belly-slasher and eviscerator. No big deal, apart from the awfulness of it all.

How can the experience of cutting a piece of meat be in anyway related to cutting another human beings throat?

Because, in cutting someone's throat, you are - in actual fact - cutting a piece of meat. The mechanics are precisely the same, and there's no "learning curve" necessary.

It just strikes me as obvious that they would be very different EXPERIENCES both psychologically and physically.

Physically similar, psychologically different. When it comes to stabbing versus cutting - different on both counts.

[perrymason]

Gareth.....gulp...are we agreeing again?

All the best Sam