Ripper Victim?

[Chava]

OK, she was killed in a rage. But he took care to silence her before he attacked her, and that does not sound very unpremeditated. No noise. No defense wounds. Laid-out after death.

I don't think so.

And by the way, she looks like her tongue is protruding. Did Killeen consider the possibility that she was strangled first?

[perrymason]

OK, she was killed in a rage. But he took care to silence her before he attacked her, and that does not sound very unpremeditated. No noise. No defense wounds. Laid-out after death.

I don't think so.

And by the way, she looks like her tongue is protruding. Did Killeen consider the possibility that she was strangled first?

Hi Chava,

They did suspect she may have been choked,......but let me ask you this....is there anything that is reported about Martha Tabram's death that would preclude her being choked and stabbed simultaneously? Yeah, of course its rhetorical....my point is that within the evidence of her death there may be 2 peoples acts evident...one choking, one stabbing. If you look at Pollys death, or Annies death, it would appear since they believed one man killed them both, and that the knife wasnt even used until they were on the ground....implying semi or fully unconscious... that he did so alone.

Is the evidence on Marthas death that of only one man as her killer? Well....she has two distinct wound types for one, and since its not clear whether she was choked before being stabbed...we may have both being done simultaneously...almost inconceivable by one man in this case....unless with one strong arm he pins her throat to the wall and with the other he stabs....how he then changes weapons is another matter.

edited to add.....two other murders that Fall called Canonicals have their killer attack them with a knife right away, while the victim was awake and resisting, and in another while likely choking them from behind. In Polly, Annies and perhaps Kates death, the killer does not use lethal force in the form of a knife until he has subdued them and they are on the ground.

Cheers Chava

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

OK, she was killed in a rage. But he took care to silence her before he attacked her, and that does not sound very unpremeditated. No noise. No defense wounds. Laid-out after death.

I don't think so.

And by the way, she looks like her tongue is protruding. Did Killeen consider the possibility that she was strangled first?

Killeen didn't mention anything about suffocation as far as i know (although it's possible some police official might have, I don't know).

However, I think the whole thing about possible suffocation and 'silence' is quite exaggerated. Like the Ripper was the only one who was capable of this. For heaven's sake, trying to silence someone by suffocation is probably one of the most common methods in any type of murder, used by amateurs as well as more experienced killers - the examples are numerous in domestic as well as non-domestic murders. It is really not that difficult or out of the ordinary.

Also, according to a newspaper article Killeen appears to have found bleeding under the scalp, indicating that Tabram might have received a blow to the head (either by the perpetrator or as she was falling to the floor).

All the best

[Chava]

However, I think the whole thing about possible suffocation and 'silence' is quite exaggerated. Like the Ripper was the only one who was capable of this. For heaven's sake, trying to silence someone by suffocation is probably one of the most common methods in any type of murder, used by amateurs as well as more experienced killers - the examples are numerous in domestic as well as non-domestic murders. It is really not that difficult or out of the ordinary.

I don't know how many examples there are in 'domestic' murders. I suspect there might not be too many. However the point I am making is that the circumstances of the murder suggest premeditation to me. Not a 'rage' killing. And I'm not buying 2 people killing Tabram in those confined quarters.

And I keep mentioning this and I haven't had one decent answer: she was found laid out. Her legs were positioned just like at least 2 of the others. The first instinct you have when attacked isn't to open your legs. It's to crouch over and try and fend off your attacker. Whoever killed her positioned her after death. And I do not think that would be done by any casual trick who lost his temper.

You guys can't have it both ways. If she was attacked in anger, she would probably not be silenced first. The attacker would rely on his weapon. Because he's angry and wants to kill quickly. He won't fart around trying to suffocate his victim and then use a knife. If he wanted to strangle her, he'd strangle her and leave her body where it fell. A rage killer doesn't need to do any more than kill the victim. If she was not attacked in anger, then why was she attacked at all? If it's someone who enjoys killing women, well we have further examples of someone who enjoys killing women, and they start only 3 weeks after this.

[robhouse]

So if then, as you say, there was only one wound in the lower portion of the body, (apparently a three inch incision 1 inch in depth, which sounds to me more like a cut than a stab) would you agree then that this was in the private part? Or do you think that Swanson was in error when he wrote this?

RH

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Feel free to step off whenever you want to, Ben!

I dunno, how about when you're rotting in your grave and pigs are flying over the snow-swept fields of hell?

That's when I'll contemplate "stepping off".

No offense, but while I don't share Glenn's position on the Tabram issue, he does have a tinsy winsy bit of a point when he observes that you try to make things more complicated than they are already.

For some reason you seem always to be annoyed when people are of a different opinion than you are

Not at all. The only thing that annoys me is when people think that the winner of the argument is the person with the loudest voice and the longest posts. That is annoying, however you slice it, and for some reason, I have this amazing ability to ensure that people are utterly antler-locked in excessively longwinded and interminable debates with me. Not a problem for me at all - I find it quite emboldening - but it's a fascinating phenomenon, and you are one the easiest to "antler-lock". Better than being ignored, any day. You're prepared to fend off critics of your unpopular scavenger theory (which I've never said anything negative about) with a submissive one-liner, but when it comes to engaging in debates with me, out comes the Magna Carta. Go out on a Saturday evening. Have a few drinks. Don't always play "catch up" with the latest thread. Just respond to what's been added most recently.

But in this context, Emma Smith offers a better choice as a an early "experimental" victim. Why? Beacuse in that case someone shoved an object into her vagina

But she lacked evidence of extensive brutalisation with the knife, such as Tabram and the later "canonical" victims received, and there is simply no possible justification for the argument that objects inserted into the vagina followed by abdomenal slashing is more of a transition than stabbing to stab/slashing. It isn't.

In fact, but for the cut to the lower abdomen - that may have been intended as a stab - what we look at is somebody AVOIDING the reproductive area

That's not a fact at all. It could simply have been the result of experimentation, following the discovery that the abdomen is softer and thus more vulnerable to knife-work. If you accept Kelly as a ripper victim, it becomes obvious that he wasn't solely fixated upon abdomens. Note that the genuine, i.e. non-hobbyist, experts don't argue that Tabram is a poor candidate as far the experimentation theory goes. They state the opposite, in fact, so any insistence to the contrary is completely worthless as far as I'm concerned. It's not based on any expetise of experience. And no, there's no evidence that Tabram's killer was deliberately avoiding the abdomen at all.

There never WAS any real consistency with Kürten, Ben, and that of course means that it would have been hard to tell who belonged to him if he had stayed uncaught, just like you say.

No, it wouldn't. Several of his murders were far more consistent than some of the others, and if he wasn't caught, you're still bound to have some complete numpty with more ego than commonsense argue that "Duh boss! He must have only done these ones because the other ones are different!", despite reality reassuring the better-informed with a completely different picture. Then there's the Zodiac Killer, Peter Sutcliffe and David Berkowitz - all as capable of remarkable consistency as they are of diversity.

We HAVE four throat-cutting and abdomen-opening strikes that very reasonably can be called Jacks, and therefore what we HAVE is something that urges us to work along those lines when we look for possible predecessors to the canonical killings

No, we don't. Not according to those with actual demonstrable expertise on the topic, we don't. We just listen to the bonafide experts who have absolutely no trouble whatsoever accepting that a prostitute stabber of East End prostitutes in the small hours can mutate into a slasher and stabber of East End prostitutes.

that there is no actual physical hinderance for Jack to have been a stabber. Or a shooter. Or a poisoner. Or a hatchet artist. Or just about anything else. That, Ben, are all things he MAY have been. A neck-cutter and an eviscerator, though, is what we KNOW he was!

Uhh...no

We know that Jack was a stabber from the autposises of Nichols and Eddowes. It isn't just a question of what he may have been. We know he stabbed.

No evidence that he was a shooter, poisoner, or all of the rest of it.

Of course I can bloody well use the knowledge telling us that he chose to cut necks and open abdomens at each and every occasion he surfaced

Yes, but you can't make restrictive assumptions as to how consistent Jack was based on the victims you've already excluded. It makes no sense, and it is a daft and circular argument. Point out what we know we was capable of, sure, but don't use that as a basis for deciding what he didn't or couldn't do.

since I refrain from saying that there MUST have been other deeds, all of them EXACTLY like the canonical deeds, you should refrain from saying that there would have been experimental deeds, totally UNLIKE the canonicals in the way they were executed.

There's no ironclad proof either way, but I have an easier time lumping him in with the majority of serial killers who demonstrate diversity in their murder/mutilation methods rather than deciding that JTR must have been one of those incredibly rare, robotic serial killers who must conform, Hollywood-like, to a rigidly consistent technique. It appears you had the sense to acknowledge this earlier, but once again you became sidetracked in an unsuccessful attempt to score points against me, and now you're spoiling all those good points you've made.

whereas your suggestion craves a totally different deed, performance- as well as focuswise, a methodology that appeared once and disappeared afterwards, never to be heard of again, more or less.

It's not totally different at all. In the context of known serial killers, there's nothing about the Tabram-to-Nichols change that could possible be construed as "totally different", and those with actual expert insight and background into this topic don't find it totally different either. Thank the lord.

So, more common than not, Ben? The thing to expect, actually? If you have evidence of a slasher, go looking for a guy who stabs next time over and you have your man?

Whether it's the thing to expect or not, it's the thing to embrace as a very real possibility rather than ruling out for no good reason, because history and expertise says we should embrace it as a very real possibility. Please don't embarrass yourself though by pretending I'm the one that's "desperate". Normally, that would elicit a hostile response from me, but to give you one would be to confound a genuine blow to my self-esteeem with a ridiclous character assassination that must be treated with the contempt it richly deserves.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

and is now without her doss..indicates that its most likely...neither Polly or Annie had any money on them.

I wouldn't have said "no" money, Mike.

They may have sought to bolster what little money they had by soliciting, but the chances of them ALL having NO money was pretty slim, I'd say. Bear in mind my earlier observation that an insufficient money to pay for a doss house bed needn't - and probably didn't - equate to no money at all. It is also very likely that the killer sifted through Chapman's belongings for coins or anything else of possible value, and he may have done the same with Eddowes too.

And again, there's certainly no case for arguing that Tabram was "likely" to have any more cash about her person when she died than the other victims.

Best regards,
Ben

[harry]

Glen,
For the first time you have been correct about me.You are quite right, I have never seen one of those types of murders.Then again ,neither have you,for all your claims.You might have seen the results of murder,but that is all,so the state of the individual when he is committing the crime is as unknown to you as it is to me,and so it is in the Tabram case.Still when are you going to answer my question of what is frenzy,and how it applies in Tabram's murder.
Michael,
I'll accept your remark about the hurried nature of his activities while stabbing Tabram,I have remarked on that myself,but wouldn't speed be a factor in such a public place?.Speed does not neccesseraly indicate frenzy,just an appreciation of what is neccessary in the circumstances,and would more indicate a person in control than one stabbing recklessly and without thought.Hence the tight grouping of the wounds to the throat.Hurried maybe,concentrated positively,but frenzied,no.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I don't know how many examples there are in 'domestic' murders. I suspect there might not be too many. However the point I am making is that the circumstances of the murder suggest premeditation to me. Not a 'rage' killing. And I'm not buying 2 people killing Tabram in those confined quarters.

And I keep mentioning this and I haven't had one decent answer: she was found laid out. Her legs were positioned just like at least 2 of the others. The first instinct you have when attacked isn't to open your legs. It's to crouch over and try and fend off your attacker. Whoever killed her positioned her after death. And I do not think that would be done by any casual trick who lost his temper.

You guys can't have it both ways. If she was attacked in anger, she would probably not be silenced first. The attacker would rely on his weapon. Because he's angry and wants to kill quickly. He won't fart around trying to suffocate his victim and then use a knife. If he wanted to strangle her, he'd strangle her and leave her body where it fell. A rage killer doesn't need to do any more than kill the victim. If she was not attacked in anger, then why was she attacked at all? If it's someone who enjoys killing women, well we have further examples of someone who enjoys killing women, and they start only 3 weeks after this.

No, Chava, you are wrong.
There exists thousands of cases all over the world - many of them domestic and perpetrated by total amateurs and non-criminals. We've had several in Sweden only the last few years. And they are all done in some sort of temporary excitment or rage situation.
It IS one of the most common methods to kill someone, with intent or accidently.

And really, how difficult is it to actually silence someone if youre' giving them a blow to the head (if that is what happened) or if you're choking them?
As I see it, the killer of Tabram lost his temper with her and either choked her or gave her a blow to the head (or both) and then in a continuing rage started to stab her.

As for her body position, I HAVE NUMEROUS TIMES answered this and commented on it. You see, you are not the first person to ask this.
But I'll say it again: who says there are signs of her body being deliberately 'laid out'? Both body position and the skirts laid up are probably among the most common elements we see in any murder and deriving from natural or practical reasons. It is a mistake to interpret it as anything esle.
It is possible - since Tabram was a prostitute - that she in fact was lying down and her skirt already being pulled up when she was attacked, since she and her attacker was intending to engage in a sexual intercourse. I don't see anything 'premeditated' or strange with it. But again, there's just another thing that's being overinterpretated and misleadingly read as one of the 'Ripper's trait'.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glen,
For the first time you have been correct about me.You are quite right, I have never seen one of those types of murders.Then again ,neither have you,for all your claims.You might have seen the results of murder,but that is all,so the state of the individual when he is committing the crime is as unknown to you as it is to me,and so it is in the Tabram case.Still when are you going to answer my question of what is frenzy,and how it applies in Tabram's murder.

harry,
As you know perfectly well, I meant that I have come across an endless rwo of cases like these and been studying their circumstances.
In not ANY of those cases have a multiple stabbing killing with many punch holes NOT beimng a result of frenzy - according to medical men and investigators involved in those cases.
Yes, I have answered your question about frenzy - the problem is that you have difficulties understanding what is being said to you. A frenzied crime is a crime committed in sudden rage or excitment and with great force and speed. According to criminologists is the number of wounds (for example multiple stab wounds) a typical sign of a frenzied crime. If a perpetrator stabs someone repeatedly in an overkill situation there can be no doubt whatsoever that the perpetrator has acted in frenzy.
This is all actually totally logical and to say that a perpetrator who have perforated a body with 39 wounds irregularly over the most common stabbing areas would do so by design and controlled behaviour and not frenzy makes no sense whatsoever, because ther wounds indicates the complete opposite.

This has been brought to you again and again, but still you continue to deliver your nonsense stuff, and spread misleading information from your lacking ability to read even the most obvious crime scene. I have seen you deliver many strange arguments over the yeaars on different threads that makes no sense, but this really takes the cake. You simply have no idea what you are talking about if you're questioning such an obvious feature in the Tabram murder as its frenzied circumstances.

[harry]

Glen,
That is the first time I have seen anything like an attempt from you to describe frenzy,and it isn't far off the mark or markedly different from the example I gave.Of course not all multiple stabbings is the result of frenzy,nor are multiple cases of shooting or mutiple cases of bludgeoning,or multiple cases of anything that brings death.Each case has to be taken on it's own merits,each element scrutinized.You cannot just make a comparison with other cases,or justify a decision on the number of wounds,and this is all you are doing.
Now the wounds on Tabram were not spread irregularly over the body.Two groupings,the throat and the breast,are clearly established by KIlleen as being separate to each other,and to the rest of the punctures.They were all centred on one organ,and it is this one organ that should be the focus of attention.Each of the throat and breast groupings must have held a particular but separate meaning to the killer.While one might suggest a sexual context in the breast and lower concentration of wounds,one cannot say the same for the throat,and it is these wounds,concentrated as they are to that particular small section of the body,that clearly shows an intent of some purpose,and if there was intent,it is clearly outside your desciption of frenzy.
No Glen,it is not I that is trying to mispresent things.It is you.And you have to ,if you persist with the farcical theory of a soldier suddenly losing contol and stricking out blindly.
A theory based on nothing more than an unsubstanciated story by a policeman.You write of my strange postings,I doubt I have ever posted anything as strange as that theory.

[Jeff Leahy]

- since Tabram was a prostitute - that she in fact was lying down and her skirt already being pulled up when she was attacked, since she and her attacker was intending to engage in a sexual intercourse. I don't see anything 'premeditated' or strange with it. But again, there's just another thing that's being overinterpretated and misleadingly read as one of the 'Ripper's trait'.

All the best

Oh come on Glenn your really not expecting us to buy that arguement. You'll be asking us the tuck her in with a Teddy and hot water bottle next.

Pirate

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Harry,

Yes, ALL multiple stabbings are a result of frenzy. ALL.
The number of wounds can't indicate anything else.
Every case I've come across with such number of wounds have been a result of a perpetrator in frenzy.
I don't want to debate about it because there is nothing to debate about. End of story.

And as usual you are trying to construct things out of nothing when you're trying to find 'controlled elements' in the killer's approach.
Firstly, if you read Killeen's report, you'll find that the killer managed to puncture almost every possible organ on the torso and stomach area - that means that the wounds were spread out over the whole front part of upper body. Several organs over this big area were hit with the knife. If you then add that the neck was targeted as well, as well as the genital area, tyhen you can't really speak of a concentration of wounds. None at all.

There is no controlled element in the Tabram murder and no specific target area except the common ones in any stabbing murder (legs and arms are seldom hit in stabbing incidents because they are difficult to hit, while the torso and stomach are the most common ones and more easy to target).

You call them 'two groupings' but there is no such thing when you consider that within those areas, the wounds are spread out apparently in an aim to hit anything. And then we have the location of the other wounds, that Killeen don't specify, wounds that were most likely not hitting any organs at all but mere fat and tissue.
Also, that wounds to the neck and the torso would be separate is of course only logical since the shoulders are less easy to penetrate and anyone who easily wants to deliver several stabs to a body, naturally - and instinctively - turns to areas that are easy to penetrate and contain more fat. Even frenzied offenders make choices instictively.
But again - this is just another point that has been misinterpreted and overinterpreted.

As for the soldier seen by PC Barret, it was actually a lead followed by the ibvestigators and quite a lot of efforts was were made in order to identify this man, so apparently Scotland Yard found this lead more important than you do. So I am afraid I am not alone in focusing on that.
In the case of this soldier, we at least have some sort of credible witness sighting of a man in the vicinity of the crime scene at the approximate of the murder. Even the police appears to have shared this view.
I also detect that each time soldiers comes into the discussion as perpetrators, you seem to protest. But in fact soldiers are very credible suspects in cases like these, because we have several cases where soliders have gone berserk and out of control. here in Sweden we've had several and just recently there has been reports on the national news about a large perecentage of soldiers suffering from psychological stress and illness, and being guilty of violence at home, also in domestic circumstances. Homecoming soldiers suffering from traumas and turning violent has become a large problem over here lately since Sweden has been involved in actions abroad in peace forces in the Middle East.

But at least in the case of the soldier, we do have a suspect who was at the right place and at the right time and a lead that was subject to serious police investigation.
That is the only evidence of a suspect we do have in Tabram's case - everything esle is just fairytales and personal speculations.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Oh come on Glenn your really not expecting us to buy that arguement. You'll be asking us the tuck her in with a Teddy and hot water bottle next.

Pirate

Yes, I do. I have lost count on how many times I've seen that type of body position and skirt being drawn up in conncection with murders. theyv are incredibly common and it is certainly not an element unique to the Ripper or even serial killers. For the most part they have practical reasons.
Read a bit on criminology, Jeff, before you deliver your childish and unintelligent comments.

All the best

[Jeff Leahy]

- since Tabram was a prostitute - that she in fact was lying down

All the best

Sorry Glen I should have been more specific, I was refering to her laying down, Prostitutes didn't then. Pirate.

I'm also worried by the use of the word Frenzy. Which is always applied to demonstrate that Martha's killer was different from Jack.

This is sheer semantics’. The only difference in ferocity between the C5 and Martha was out of necessity. Again when this crime is reconstructed the stabbing will have to be done through at least two possibly three layers of clothing. Of course Jack had to use the point of the knife he had no option.

So lets just recap: Annie Millwood is attacked by person unknown who stabs through her clothing. NO cut to throat. No Slashes. No cuts face. No missing organs.

Martha Tabram: Is strangled (If you don’t believe me then go back and look at her photo. Her tongue is clearly protruding) She is lowered to the floor and like Annie Stabbed with ferocity through her clothing (It would be nearly impossible to SLASH through her clothing). This time however the killer stabs at the throat (Front Neck) raises her skirt and SLASHES (probably) her abdomen. This attack shows development.

Nichols: Same as Tabram Nichols is Strangled and lowered to floor. This time killer decides not to attack the body through clothing but goes straight for the throat, lefts skirt and increases cutting to abdomen. The end of the knife is simply NOT required in this attack. This attack shows development.

Chapman. Also strangled and lowered to floor. Again cut to throat. Attack SLASH abdomen. This time organs removed. This attack shows development.

Stride attack interrupted by Schwartz.

Eddowes: Possibly strangled. Lowered to ground throat cut. SLASH to abdomen, organs removed. Cuts to face. This attack shows development.

Kelly....shows development.

What we have hear gentleman whether STABBING or SLASHING is a very ferocious DUCK.

Pirate