Ripper Victim?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glen,

I agree with you that we will never agree on anything...

But whereas you say (in your typically denigrating and superior manner) "you are deluding yourself since there are no compelling evidence pointing in that direction"...

This is a rather odd statement, since I am specifically citing and quoting "evidence pointing in that direction", if you will actually read my last few posts. You are simply not responding to any of the actual points I am making.

RH

Rob,

There is no evidence in those point you mention that even indicates a slightest connection to the Ripper crimes.
I say it again: there are no compelling evidence that suggests tabram was murdered by the Ripper. The Tabram murder was a frenzied killing and even if she DID have a cut in the area of the vagina (which I doubt) then it doesn't alter the fact that other indications and crime scvene evidence point away from any such connection. And I am afraid it is you who don't respond to those points or pretends that they don't exist.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"You telling me that my arguments are failing is tantamount to a huge reassurance that they're doing the precise opposite"

My hunch here, Ben, is that your dislike of me connects very well to the fact that you have a very hard time accepting that you may be wrong. Iīm not surprised, though, since you regularly fall into the trap of calling me names and offering stupidities like this.

"Too bad you've no evidence that he was interested in the "reproductive areas" from the outset of his crimes. For all we know, he could have been chiefly interested in generalised murder and mutilation of prostitutes with with a knife, and that he simply honed in on the particulars as he progressed and explored. In that respect, Tabram is a far more logical predecessor to Nichols than Emma Smith, and once again, we find that the legitimate experts agree with me, not you. You seem to include Kelly as a ripper victim, but there was no primary interest in the reproductive organs there either. Your insistence to the contrary is completely worthless. There's no value whatsoever in your opinion, since you lack the knowledge and the background to trump the people with actual knowledge. Have an opinion, fine, but don't keep using inappropriately strong language as though you're the replacement authority on the subject."

Arguing against you in this case, Ben, you only need common sense to reach authority enough to dismiss your, ehrm, "expert wiew". "Too bad" that I donīt have any evidence of what he was interested in from the outset? You have to be joking! I am not the one who lacks evidence - you are! You are the one who keep adding one deed after another, with no evidence at all, and with very little likeness to what the Ripper accomplished. Itīs you who are at a loss, not me, Ben. Donīt be ridiculous.

"we attribute them to the same killer on logical grounds. What we don't do is claim that the ripper was only responsible for those and no others"

Exactly. We leave the possibility open, and we look for other strikes that showed traits that correspond well with the canonicals. What we DONīT do, is to yell "Hereīs a perfect match, guys!" when we find a woman subjected to everyday, tedious knife violence with no corresponding focus at all.

"No, it means we're looking for people who murder and mutilate prostitutes with a knife, preferably in the small hours of the morning and in the same concentrated locality where the other murders and mutilations occured. Fine tune a serial killer's MO much beyond that and we're making a typically gauche hobbyist error, and one that acknowledged authorities on serial killers have learned to avoid at all costs."

That is a very good start, Ben! Correct, corrct, correct, correct and correct again! These are all things that add to the possibility that Tabram was Jacks. Bravo! The knife work, however, RETRACTS from that possibility, and apart from you and your team of experts, my guess is that most of us out here would recognize that.

"Your "priority" list is risible in the extreme, since it espouses precisely the sort of ludicrously crass and limited criteria that have resulted on occasions in very serious miscarriages of justice"

It can be wrong. It may be the other way around. If there was a previous run where he hit twenty-plus people over the head with a Bible, then THAT should be on top of the list.
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IT RELATES TO THE ONLY ACKNOWLEDGED, ACCUMULATED FACTS WE HAVE ON OUR KILLER! Until you understand that, you remain at a disadvantage.
You have to score the goals before you start counting points, Ben! Once you have done that, I will join you in readjusting our picture of the Ripper. Before it - no.

"People can keep telling me whatever they want. If I know it to be false, what I supposed to do - care?"

What you know, you can prove. But there is no way you are going to be able to prove that Tabram was the Rippers, or that her death was a perfect predecessor to the Ripper killing. All you can do is some futile bragging about "experts wiews" - that effectively prove NOTHING in this case. So yes, you should care, you should listen, and - with some luck - perhaps even learn a multitude of things, from civil behaviour to the benefits of seeing things from other sides than yours.

"Besides, you think Tabram was a ripper victim, remember?"

Yes. For all the good reasons. As opposed to you, Ben, who casually link her to his tally on no good grounds at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I wonder: should the rest of us back out and leave the field for Ben and Fishtail?

All the best

[robhouse]

I am sorry that my brain skipped a synapse in that quote. I meant that if the wound was in fact in the "private part", as Swanson says, the it increases the likelihood of Tabram being a Ripper victim. You may choose not to agree with that if you choose.

But as such, I am citing evidence that seems to suggest that the wound in the "lower portion of the body" (which you claim never existed), was in fact quite possibly a wound in the genitals (as Swanson specifically said). In my opinion, if you read between the lines, this seems most likely.

I will give you another example:

(East London Observer)

"The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth. From appearances, there was no reason to suppose that recent intimacy had taken place"

Now, if Killeen had been describing a wound in the throat, or in the stomach, and then afterwards said "there was no reason to suppose that recent intimacy had taken place," that would be a non-sequitor. If (on the other hand) he was describing a wound in the genitals, then was asked a specific follow up question on the same subject, that would make sense.

For example the following:

Killeen: "There was a cut through the genitals, that extended three inches."

Coroner: "And, in your opinion, was there evidence to suggest recent intimacy?"

RH

[Fisherman]

Robhouse writes:

"I think the exact nature and location of this wound is potentially very important in determining if Tabram was a Ripper victim."

Abso - ****in - lutely, Robhouse! THAT is the way to go about it! Sense is a beautiful thing!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn asks:

"I wonder: should the rest of us back out and leave the field for Ben and Fishtail?"

Good heavens, Glenn: NO!!!

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Rob,

As you know, I have NEVER ever interpreted that line as connected wityh anything else being said in that account. And I still don't.
The sentence "there was no reason to suppose that recent intimacy had taken place" is without doubt a statement not attached to any lost sentence about privare parts or any of the previous injuries but as it usually is: a statement on its own. I've seen similar wording in other police, medical or press reports in connection with medical details and there is usually no connection with anything mentioned previosuly. It is usually mentioned towards the end of any such account as a standard statement.

I honestly can't see why you from that phrase would theorise that there was an omitted description of a wound in the genitals. Not at all. And I am afraid it's speculation at its worst.
So now we are supposed to fill in the blanks with whatever we choose that fits our arguments?

All the best

[robhouse]

The most obvious thing to do would be to fill in the blanks with Swanson's specific statement of a wound in the "private part"... which you choose to omit, because it goes against your personal theories.

RH

[Brenda]

I agree with Dave O and Robhouse's points.

Also, I do not believe that just because the crime took place in high-crime area where prostitutes plied their trade, that someone stabbing a prostitute 39 times would be considered "just another murder" and nothing out of the ordinary, even in Whitechapel. Murders like that are not common, at all, which is why when they do happen, people tend to notice them. Although nothing will ever be solved, to ignore Martha Tabram's murder, especially in the context of the murders that came after, is sheer folly.

[robhouse]

In any case, Killeen's point about "no recent connexion" was clearly in response to a follow up question...

"Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made (here is omitted what the ELO described as the wound in the lower portion of the body), and in answer to questions stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion" - E. London Advertiser.

You may say that the point about "no recent connexion" was "without doubt a statement not attached to any lost sentence"... etc. In the ELA at least the two ideas are connected in the sense that they are both part of the same sentence... connected with "and".

RH

[Fisherman]

Brenda writes:

" I do not believe that just because the crime took place in high-crime area where prostitutes plied their trade, that someone stabbing a prostitute 39 times would be considered "just another murder" and nothing out of the ordinary, even in Whitechapel. Murders like that are not common"

Itīs a matter of context, Brenda. The coroner spoke of it as a particularly gruesome slaying, and it would not have been everyday stuff - unless you compared it to a killing where somebody, say, cut the neck to the bone of his victim and set about opening up her abdomen and eviscerating her. In THAT context, it WAS a tediously common killing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The most obvious thing to do would be to fill in the blanks with Swanson's specific statement of a wound in the "private part"... which you choose to omit, because it goes against your personal theories.

RH

I don't have any personal theories.
The surviving facts suggests to me very clearly that this was not a Ripper killing. I don't feel the need to fill in any blanks. As soon as we begin to do that, we can "prove" anything.

All the best

[Brenda]

I don't know, Mr. Fisherman, I live in a high-crime area. In the past 30 years, we've had our share of prosititutes killed, but they weren't over-killed like that! Sadly, they are either stabbed a few times, or shot, and dumped off by roadways or railroad tracks. When was the last over-kill stabbing where you live? It just doesn't happen THAT much!

[robhouse]

Glenn,

You clearly have personal theories (as do I). It does not alter the fact that you have not actually responded to any of the specific things I cited in reports of Killeen's testimony. Which is fine.

RH

[Fisherman]

Brenda writes:

"I don't know, Mr. Fisherman, I live in a high-crime area. In the past 30 years, we've had our share of prosititutes killed, but they weren't over-killed like that! Sadly, they are either stabbed a few times, or shot, and dumped off by roadways or railroad tracks. When was the last over-kill stabbing where you live? It just doesn't happen THAT much!"

Luckily, no. And I am not disputing this in any way. Like I said earlier, we have the coroners words on the fact that he regarded the Tabram killing as something that did not come along often - on the contrary, he spoke of the worst case he had seen for several years.
What I am trying to say, though, is that a stab is a stab is a stab - the character of it does not in itself change beacuse you add a multitude of them. And the multitude of stabs was what caused the coroners judgement - not the specific character of the stabs in themselves. They remained tedious, all-to-familiar stabs, and stabbings were thirteen a dozen in Whitechapel.

What the Ripper did, on the other hand, was something that IN CHARACTER differed in the extreme from any stabbing, no matter how many stabs we speak of. The wounds he inflicted were parts of an agenda to eviscerate, and eviscerators were never thirteen a dozen, not even in Whitechapel. They remain very, very rare.
That is why I say that in a context like that, the Tabram killing was by far the more common one!

The best, Brenda!
Fisherman