Ripper Victim?

[Mascara & Paranoia]

If anything, it's "almost impossible" to accept that Jack was robot-like, mechanical, and frankly Hollywoodesque when it came to uniformity in his methods. Much better to assume diversity in an uncaught serial killer, especially when it comes to assessing their earlier murders which will very rarely be a mirror image of later ones - far from it.

I don't think anyone accepts, let alone believes, that Jack was "mechanical" and/or had a one-track mind with his killings. A lot points against that much, especially midway of the canonical murders. But trying to come up with out-there theories as to how and why Tabram could be one of Jack's just makes the whole argument look precisely what it is; desperate.

But it's much worse to attibute most of them to different killers, because in so doing we'd be positing the existence of several independent knife-wielding maniacs, all deciding to descend on a small pocket of the East End at around the same time.

You hold a valid point and one I share, but looking at all of those murders prior to the Autum of Terror individually, there's nothing to suggest that they couldn't be just that, individual and one-off murders committed by different people. In fact, if I remember rightly, one survived, one died of something completely unrelated to the actual assault itself and another died a few days later; all indicating that murder wasn't even a motive (plus the latter was allegedly set upon by a small gang of criminals). So I think that only leaves Tabram, unless I've forgotten any of the other victims, and so it's not at all 'worse' to assume that she may have been killed by a frenzied client (other than Jack) for whatever reason.

Edit: Maybe I should've referred to the 'murders' prior to the canonicals' as deaths and/or manslaughters to spare myself from appearing contradictory; I'm not, I just struggle with wording things clearly. ;p

[Ben]

But trying to come up with out-there theories as to how and why Tabram could be one of Jack's

But you don't need to come up with any "out-there" theories to advance a very plausible argument for Tabram being one of Jack's early murders. All you need to do is remind everyone that serial killers are perfectly capable of refining their methods as they practise and explore, especially after their first murder, which will often be an unplanned affair. The transition between Tabram and Nichols is really very miniscule when we observe the transitions most serial killers are capable of. Far from being "desperate", it's a fact.

In fact, if I remember rightly, one survived, one died of something completely unrelated to the actual assault itself and another died a few days later; all indicating that murder wasn't even a motive

It doesn't indicate that "murder wasn't even a motive". More likely, it suggests that murder was unsuccessfully attempted which, again, wouldn't be remotely unusual for the first faltering steps of a serial killer in the inexperienced phase of his career. That doesn't mean that all of them should be chalked up to the work of an eventual serial killer true, but at the same time, it arms us with a cautionary disincentive against ruling them out too confidently.

[Chava]

But trying to come up with out-there theories as to how and why Tabram could be one of Jack's just makes the whole argument look precisely what it is; desperate.

With respect, Mascare and Paranoia, I don't think it's a desperate position to hold. For years I dismissed the Tabram murder as a one-off and nothing to do with the series. Now I've changed my mind. I think it's likely she was a Ripper victim. Nothing 'desperate'. I don't have a book to sell. I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. Nor am I going to reiterate the (quite rational) reasons why I have changed my mind.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

But you don't need to come up with any "out-there" theories to advance a very plausible argument for Tabram being one of Jack's early murders.

But there's nothing plausible about many, if not most, of the arguments being made in order to make her out to be a Ripper victim. If she was, then it was more likely Jack's way of seeing if he was indeed capable of murder before engaging in his actual jollies than the majority of over the top theories that are being concocted about her murder; which are desperate attempts to pin it on Jack as a way of highering his body count, for whatever reason; maybe he's just not cool in some peoples' eyes if he hasn't killed as so many victims, I don't know what the logic is behind doing that.

It doesn't indicate that "murder wasn't even a motive". More likely, it suggests that murder was unsuccessfully attempted which, again, wouldn't be remotely unusual for the first faltering steps of a serial killer in the inexperienced phase.

But those cases I mentioned are almost certainly individual and one-off murders committed by offenders other than Jack. And more likely than not they were all unpremeditated assaults where murder was highly probably not a motive and just a by-product of the offences in question. You just have to read the stuff surrounding their deaths to realise that.

@ Chava: I thought the exact opposite to you initially ;p, so I understand where you're coming from. At first I thought Tabram was a Ripper victim until I thoroughly read the stuff about her murder and a lot, if not most, aspects point against it. Obviously I don't mean no intentional disrepect either when calling the theories 'desperate', but that's the bluntest way of putting it.

[Ben]

But there's nothing plausible about many, if not most, of the arguments being made in order to make her out to be a Ripper victim

Well, yes there is.

I've just provided them.

Experience from other serial cases utterly and conclusively trumps any too confident assertion that she should be ruled out on the basis of the wounds being too "different". That doesn't mean that she was definitely one of the series, but it certainly isn't a "desperate" argument to reason otherwise. On the contrary, it's an irrefutably strong one, borne out by extensive experience and pretty much unanimous expert opinion, and to invalidate it would be far more "desperate" than anything I've heard from the pro-Tabram camp.

Its nothing to do with any "cool" factor. There's nothing remotely "cool" about the possibility of the killer having murdered more victims than was popularly supposed. It's more to do with applying what we should have learned about the behaviour of other serial killers to an unsolved serial case; of avoiding the trap of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and misappropriating terms such an "MO" and "signature".

But those cases I mentioned are almost certainly individual and one-off murders committed by offenders other than Jack.

I disagree, and find your "certainty" to be quite unwarranted. One or more of the cases you mentioned could easily have been perpetrated by the Whitechapel murderer, since we know that the early offences of the vast majority of serial killers will be considerably less organized than their later methods.

And more likely than not they were all unpremeditated assaults where murder was highly probably not a motive and just a by-product of the offences in question

It depends which cases you're talking about. The ones I have in mind were likely to have been deliberate attempts to murder that were aborted by the killer on account of the victim screaming out and alerting anyone in the vicinity. You might argue that murder wasn't a primary motive in the Smith case, but that wouldn't be very persuasive when applied to Mmes Millwood and Wilson.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Well, yes there is.

I've just provided them.

Experience from other serial cases utterly and conclusively trumps any too confident assertion that she should be ruled out on the basis of the wounds being too "different". That doesn't mean that she was definitely one of the series, but it certainly isn't a "desperate" argument to reason otherwise. On the contrary, it's an irrefutably strong one, borne out by extensive experience and pretty much unanimous expert opinion, and to invalidate it would be far more "desperate" than anything I've heard from the pro-Tabram camp.

Right. And you accuse me of thinking of Jack as a "robot-like, mechanical and Hollywood-esque" killer. You don't seem to realise that comparing serial killers to one another isn't always a conclusive and accurate tool of understanding a completely different beast's mindset and the like. I've seen these sort of so-called expert opinions before and they just as easily fall apart as any other argument, depending on the actual facts and evidence. What little facts and evidence we have of Tabram's murder points in the opposite direction to the Ripper, and not because he was experimenting with different murderous tactics and fantasies. A lot of equally expert opinions would tend to lean in agreement with my layman perception of Tabram's murder too. You seem to be forgetting that serial killers are individuals, not statistics.

I disagree, and find your "certainty" to be quite unwarranted. One or more of the cases you mentioned could easily have been perpetrated by the Whitechapel murderer, since we know that the early offences of the vast majority of serial killers will be considerably less organized than their later methods.

They could've - at a far-fetched stretch at making things look the way you want them to be. But realistically, and using common sense, they 95% were not attributed to Jack.

It depends which cases you're talking about. The ones I have in mind were likely to have been deliberate attempts to murder that were aborted by the killer on account of the victim screaming out and alerting anyone in the vicinity. You might argue that murder wasn't a primary motive in the Smith case, but that wouldn't be very persuasive when applied to Mmes Millwood and Wilson.

Those are exactly the three cases I was thinking about; Wilson, Millwood and Smith. And neither of those indicate predmeditated murder or even murder as a motive. They come across as very spur of the moment things and have next to nothing to do with a serial killer's evolution. Again, you have to admit, it is a little bit of a desperate argument for a person to make; clumping together almost certainly unrelated murders (or rather, manslaughters) in a weak attempt to find something that just isn't likely to be there?

[perrymason]

Hi All,

If anything at all can be learned from the 133 pages we have run up here, its that there is no conclusive evidence.. either way.

If you like her as a Ripper victim or you feel she isnt one, you will find some support for either argument in the evidence to base a supposition on.

I believe the only way we will see that change is if someday someone ascertains both the killer and the motive for the murders...and we can then see where Martha does or doesnt line up square.

Thats not likely....so my suggestion is check with her evidence when working ideas on your own suspects and see if she fits. Many think the Ripper killings were committed by dangerous and insane poor man of the East End, whose kills range from a single slice to almost totally de-engineering a human in her bedroom. I dont see any reason why a man like that wouldnt stab someone to death.

However I personally dont see the Canonical Group as viable, and can therefore try and match murders with characteristics that are obvious and similar. The killer who was referred to as Jack was more specific than the type that might use wildly varied techniques, IMHO.

Cheers all.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Exactly one of my main points. Though I think it's best to leave suspects out of it (including our perception of who Jack was) and look at whatever little facts we have truthfully with an unbiased eye.

[Ben]

You don't seem to realise that comparing serial killers to one another isn't always a conclusive and accurate tool of understanding a completely different beast's mindset and the like.

Of course, but it's an infinitely more accurate tool than making generalizations about what serial killers would or wouldn't do with literally nothing to back it up beyond a misplaced faith in the validity of one's own assertions. They're not just "so-called" experts either. Their background and experience in the field of serial crime unquestionably qualifies them as geunine experts. I don't have a problem with anyone espousing a different view, but making whopping great pronoucements like: "What little facts and evidence we have of Tabram's murder points in the opposite direction to the Ripper" carries no weight whatsoever. That's just your opinion - nothing more, and it isn't even in allignment with the majority of contemporary police, let alone modern criminologists.

A lot of equally expert opinions would tend to lean in agreement with my layman perception of Tabram's murder too

Nobody whose background and experience is in serial crime.

You seem to be forgetting that serial killers are individuals, not statistics.

Exactly, and most of the "individuals" are perfectly capable of criminal diversity, rather than an implausible rigid adherence to a meticulous technique.

They could've - at a far-fetched stretch at making things look the way you want them to be.

Not at all. No far-fetched stretch requires at any stage. All that is required is some rudimentary knowledge of serial killers, with the accompanying insight that the majority of serial killers do not start off as ready-made products, but as inexperienced offenders. Again, this is another reason why none of the experts have ruled out earlier attacks that predate Nichols.

they 95% were not attributed to Jack.

That's a percentage you came up with based on your assumptions, and is therefore meaningless when it comes to an accurate assessment of the likelihood that the killer committed pre-Nichols offences.

Those are exactly the three cases I was thinking about; Wilson, Millwood and Smith. And neither of those indicate predmeditated murder or even murder as a motive.

Nonsense. Millwood was stabbed in the lower torso and legs, and Wilson was stabbed in the throat. Are you seriously suggesting that Wilson's killer only meant to hurt her when he plunged in the knife.

Again, you have to admit, it is a little bit of a desperate argument for a person to make; clumping together almost certainly unrelated murders (or rather, manslaughters) in a weak attempt to find something that just isn't likely to be there

Again, your certainty is wholly lacking in value since it reflects a profound and astonishing ignorance of the case and serial crime in general. That's all that I "have to admit". I'm normally very patient with inexperienced hobbyists, but I tend to lose patience when they become undeservedly cocky.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Of course, but it's an infinitely more accurate tool than making generalizations about what serial killers would or wouldn't do with literally nothing to back it up beyond a misplaced faith in the validity of one's own assertions. They're not just "so-called" experts either. Their background and experience in the field of serial crime unquestionably qualifies them as geunine experts. I don't have a problem with anyone espousing a different view, but making whopping great pronoucements like: "What little facts and evidence we have of Tabram's murder points in the opposite direction to the Ripper" carries no weight whatsoever. That's just your opinion - nothing more, and it isn't even in allignment with the majority of contemporary police, let alone modern criminologists.

By that argument, everyone's - including yours - opinions are to be viewed in the exact same way. One or two double-standards and contradictions, don't you think? Also a tad hypocritical. Of course we can only offer opinions and not much else, that goes for you as well as me.

Exactly, and most of the "individuals" are perfectly capable of criminal diversity, rather than an implausible rigid adherence to a meticulous technique.

At least that's one thing we can agree on.

Not at all. No far-fetched stretch requires at any stage. All that is required is some rudimentary knowledge of serial killers, with the accompanying insight that the majority of serial killers do not start off as ready-made products, but as inexperienced offenders. Again, this is another reason why none of the experts have ruled out earlier attacks that predate Nichols.

So you don't think attributing all the deaths in 1888 prior to the rippings to Jack is far-fetched? Says a lot...

That's a percentage you came up with based on your assumptions, and is therefore meaningless when it comes to an accurate assessment of the likelihood that the killer committed pre-Nichols offences.

Well, obviously. I never claimed otherwise.

Nonsense. Millwood was stabbed in the lower torso and legs, and Wilson was stabbed in the throat. Are you seriously suggesting that Wilson's killer only meant to hurt her when he plunged in the knife.

The Millwood assault hardly screams murder, and - like I said - the Wilson thing seems like a very spur of the moment move on the offender's behalf and not a premeditated motive for murder. Plus I'm fairly certain Wilson survived.

Again, your certainty is wholly lacking in value since it reflects a profound and astonishing ignorance of the case and serial crime in general. That's all that I "have to admit". I'm normally very patient with inexperienced hobbyists, but I tend to lose patience when they become undeservedly cocky.

Cocky? Yeah. Undeservedly? No more than you are. As for being "astonishingly ignorant" of the case, I think the same could be said for you.

[Chava]

The Millwood assault hardly screams murder, and - like I said - the Wilson thing seems like a very spur of the moment move on the offender's behalf and not a premeditated motive for murder.

However Wilson described someone that sounds very much like our Mr Blotchy Face. According to her, she answered the door to her room and someone attacked her. However there is a strong suggestion that she was working as a prostitute, and so probably invited the guy in or brought him back home with her. Or it's even possible that she had had him as a customer, he left, and came back with murder on his mind. Whatever the truth of this, he went for her neck and stabbed her a couple of times.

It's true that there were any number of men in the area who could fit Wilson's description. It's also true that this description closely matches a man seen in the company of Stride, Eddowes and Kelly just before they died.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Valid points. I was gonna say about that earlier before I got sidetracked; if any of the assaults prior to the rippings in 1888 were done by Jack, then Wilson would've been the most likeliest, more so than Tabram. I'm not necessarily saying I think she was, but I wouldn't and haven't yet ruled out the possibility as an early attack.

[CLK]

Were was Wilson attacked? Where was the house? Sorry for going off topic.

[Chava]

19 Maidman St Mile End. I went Google-Mapping for the address and couldn't find it so it might have gone in the Blitz.

[Sam Flynn]

19 Maidman St Mile End. I went Google-Mapping for the address and couldn't find it so it might have gone in the Blitz.

Google-Map "Wentworth Mews", Chava. That's what Maidman Street became, I believe.