Ripper Victim?

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, once more you are presenting some ignorance of a woman's body. The width of your torso--and the size of your enbonpoint!--have no relevance here.

Why the unnecessary use of the word "ignorance"? I specifically made the point that one would have to adjust the surface area downwards to account for Tabram, compared to me. I'm not daft, you know.

The surface area of Tabram's chest and belly wouldn't have been too far away from the estimate I suggested. The mathematics is relatively straightforward - indeed, I was basing the calculations on a rectangle to simplify matters. However, in reality we're dealing with a curved surface - which would make the available surface area larger than the simplified geometry I used.

There was plenty of space available for stab-wounds not to overlap. Not that we're told that they didn't overlap, either - which the other point I made.

[Chava]

If she's presenting a surface that curves towards the attacker, it would be quite difficult for him to catch her on the sides. Imagine a man with a knife stabbing at a semi-circular object that's facing him head-on. He will likely stab at the area closest to him--if he's in a frenzy that is. But the sides of the circle will be curving away from him and therefore will be much harder to stab properly. He might get some side action on whichever side he's holding the knife, but he probably won't go round to the other side. Why would he? He's in a frenzy and he doesn't care where he stabs her. So he'll strike at what's nearest and easiest to get at.

Of course, if he isn't in a frenzy, he'll take his sweet time stabbing away wherever he pleases to stab.

[Ben]

Then again, maybe killing Tabram made Jack rethink where his actual interests lay.

Right on the button, M&P!

That strikes me as very plausible indeed.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Right on the button, M&P!

That strikes me as very plausible indeed.

Best regards,
Ben

And as he "discovers" his interests...suddenly in three weeks he doesnt even use as knife until he has the woman semi or unconscious on the ground, he slits throats now to kill, and goes directly to the abdomen to cut it open?

Does he drink the magic potion first?....A little too much Jekyll and Hyde in that scenario I think.

Its like suggesting a baby would suddenly run marathons immediately after his or her crawling phase ends.

Best regards.

[Tom_Wescott]

Gareth, once more you are presenting some ignorance of a woman's body.

If he had a dime for every time someone said that...



Yours truly,

Tom Wescott aka Dr. Love

[Ben]

And as he "discovers" his interests...suddenly in three weeks he doesnt even use as knife until he has the woman semi or unconscious on the ground, he slits throats now to kill, and goes directly to the abdomen to cut it open?

Yep, extremely plausible. He doesn't need three weeks to come up with the idea of using a knife in a different way. He doesn't even need five minutes. Anything less dependent upon "magic potion" is difficult to contemplate, and far from any "Jekyll and Hyde" being involved, it's perfectly in allignment with what we know of serial killers.

Its like suggesting a baby would suddenly run marathons immediately after his or her crawling phase ends.

Actually it's nothing remotely like that.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Ben, the point I was sarcastically trying to make is that there is a very reasonable possibility that Jack the Rippers first 3 Canonical victims were all picked up, attacked, killed and mutilated in very nearly the identical manner, with only increasing activity as the individual event anomalies.

To get to the stage where he is not only proficient in acts that we could not even envision based on Marthas stabbing death and to do so without intermediate victims is unlikely.... he then very possibly makes 3 consecutive kills that are alike ...to me, signals a change in killer....not an epiphany of a stabber.

We have stabbing /robbery deaths before Jacks appearance and after his departure....(so where is Marthas money from the soldier at 12 ish),....this murder is "different" because its closer to Jacks spree and more violent than previous "stabbings"....but it has nothing significant in common with what may be the next 3 in a row, and first, Ripper crimes.

The murder of Polly is like a line in the sands of time...letting all who care to look see that a new kind of killer began his reign of terror.

Its like the Hyde analogy Ben....3 weeks and no visible "practice", and the suddenly he has a fixed MO for perhaps 3 straight kills....that involve organ extractions in the dark and very little "stabbing"? Not reasonable IMHO.

Best regards though...as always.

[Ben]

Its like the Hyde analogy Ben....3 weeks and no visible "practice", and the suddenly he has a fixed MO for perhaps 3 straight kills....that involve organ extractions in the dark and very little "stabbing"? Not reasonable IMHO.

Oh, eminently reasonable, Mike, and certainly in keeping with what we know to be true of the behaviour of serial killers. What isn't generally true of serial killers is the myth that they kick-start their criminal careers with a ready-polished technique which they carry out with exactitude with their next murders. Where you have a few "identical" murders, you can almost guarantee that the same offender was responsible for other less "identical" attacks, especially around the time when his criminal career was in its infancy.

You don't need an intermediate stage. The Zodiac didn't. He just aborted his "identical" technique within a similar time frame to Tabram and Nichols, before going back to shooting people in cars, and there we're talking about an alteration that makes Tabram to Nichols appear positively uniform by comparison. I've never really understood why the timing factor merits any real signifiance, since it's so obvious - and borne out by experience - that killers can come up with a revised idea of how to use a knife, and then apply that insight next time around.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

The Zodiak never had an MO carved in stone....I think the deaths of Polly, Annie and almost certainly Kate display a rather fixed methodology. I agree that it doesnt just happen that a killer has all his skill sets working at their top level...like his ability to get them on the ground with little or no noise,..or that he might cut the throats to let blood out as well as kill, or that he always proceeds to mutilations and organ extractions as the next step in the process...

He could have learned to subdue without killing, by using ligatures on animals for example.. he could have already known how to use a knife to cut organs out and where they would be best accessed...all without killing anyone.

He doesnt need to have a credited kill where the technique is dissimilar and amateurish in comparison... to be the Jack that as I said, may have killed 3 consecutive victims almost identically.

Best regards mate.

[Chava]

There are a ton of fors here, and one very important against--the stab vs rip MO. Here is a hypothesis that might explain what happened and how.

Our guy patronises prostitutes when he feels like a bit of 'ow's yer father. He doesn't have much money, so he is somewhat restricted as to his choice. He's the kind of man who picks up and coddles small resentments, and he is capable of violence. He picks up a tart in the Mile End. Her name is Ada Wilson. He goes back to her room with her, does his bit of business and leaves. But perhaps he has some, er, problems. And she gets lippy and throws him out. He goes away, stews for a while, and then comes back to her door, knocks on it, and immediately attacks her with his clasp knife when she opens it. He is seen and chased away.

A while later he picks up another prostitute in Whitechapel. Her name is Martha Tabram. She also gets smart with him, but this time he reacts quicker than he does with Wilson. He's in a dark place with no one around. So he subdues her and then stabs the **** out of her. Again with his clasp knife. He realizes during the course of this action that he enjoys it somewhat more than he expected. That sets him to thinking. And fantasizing. And in short order he's considering what more he could do to a woman's body that might afford him even more pleasure. And what is the quickest way to keep her quiet before he does that. So he gets hold of a slightly different knife and works out a slightly different MO. He keeps with the same kind of victims as the first two because if he changes, it might change his enjoyment of things. But eventually he branches out into more exotic territory. He spends more time with each successive victim apart from Stride, where he's surprised. He's refining his technique all along the way. What he would have done after Kelly, if he was able to do another, may have been even more extreme. But he starts with the stabbing of Wilson, then Tabram.

The sequence goes like this:

- Ada Wilson. Attacked and stabbed in neck twice before assailant flees.

- Martha Tabram. Attacked, killed and stabbed in throat and upper body.

- Mary Anne Nicholls. Attacked, killed and upper body mutilated with rip wounds.

- Annie Chapman. Attacked, killed, and upper body extensively mutilated and organs removed.

- (Liz Stride. Attacked and kiled.)

- Catherine Eddowes. Attacked, killed, upper body extensively mutilated, organs removed, face mutilated.

- Mary Jane Kelly. Attacked, killed, whole body mutilated, organ possibly removed, parts of body removed and strewn around room.

Now there is a progression that sounds likely to me. He doesn't start with animals because that would suggest he had an idea of what to do and was practicing before he did it. I think it's more probable that he learns and evolves on the job.

[Ben]

The Zodiak never had an MO carved in stone

Nor did any serial killer, Mike, Jack included. What the Zodiac example serves to demonstrate very successfully is that serial killers are as capable of diversity as they are of consistency. If the Zodiac never claimed responsibility for the Lake Berryessa murder or wrote his message on the car (or wore that hood), I'm sure there would be many arguing for the exclusion of that attack from the series on the grounds that the Zodiac was consistent and therefore wouldn't use a knife (etc etc).

He doesnt need to have a credited kill where the technique is dissimilar and amateurish in comparison

Although based on what we knoe of other serial killers, he is very likely to have had such kills, or attacks at the very least. As I've mentioned before, most serial killers don't get all their experience and preparation done in a classroom-like non-criminal environment. They learn on the job, which is why the first attacks and murders of a great many serial killers are unplanned, even haphazard affairs that don't always bear immediate relation to their successors. You learn to swim by getting in the water and trying it, getting it wrong, and improving. You don't learn by studying swimming theory in a classroom.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

It would appear that neither of us are likely to be pushed into one scenario or another Ben ...so Ill just leave it as I have, that for me, the death of Martha Tabram is likely another stabbing/robbery death like ones that were reported earlier in the spring. This one involved 2 men or at least, 2 weapons....and an incensed killer.

I dont see a connection...even as a larvae stage of a Ripper.

Cheers Ben

[perrymason]

Thats sound reasoning and a logical argument for the story Chava...but there is nothing you can use to now include both Martha and Ada that hasnt been tried a bunch of times already. Its the evidence that was always lacking...based on the attacks/murders themselves.

If one of the the motives of Jack the Ripper was to obtain female abdominal organs....something which many dismiss but is still relevant and possible....then how do stabbing deaths prepare that killer?

Its a basic problem...and the one I have with Ben....the assumption you are using is that he was a serial killer only...that his goal was to kill.....in different ways and to satisfy his urge to kill. Thats what most investigators thought too.

Problem is...using that as a basis for his profile is like building on sand. Its not be proven why he killed....the killing portion of his abdominal mutilation victims is one of the briefest acts he performs, and he is obviously interested in more than just causing death.

Until people stop assuming that anyone killed in the East End in London in 1888 is a probable or potential Jack victim, ...cause he was a wild madman who stabs, cuts, makes Torsos or who knows what else...in my opinion, no one will ever have a chance to know why a man killed 3 women identically with postmortem abdominal mutilations and earned himself the name of Ripper during that time.

If you want him to be a serial killer, who kills just to kill, by all means, add them all in. If you wonder why women were mutilated in such bizarre fashion in 1888 on the streets...then you likely have to open your mind to other motivations or goals than just merely satisfying his demons of the moment with stabs or cuts.

This was a far more complicated place at that time than is often considered when it comes to Jacky...why should he be less complex.

Best regards Chava.

[Ben]

The problem I have with a great deal of the above, Mike, is that you appear to be using your assumption that the killer had interesting motives that elevated him to a status above that of a mere serial killer to bolster your argument for the exclusion of certain victims, and I feel that runs the risk of becoming circular reasoning.

If we examine the crime scene evidence from this and other cases, and disavow any preconceptions as to motive, then we're left with a very strong argument for a serial killer who - in keeping with practically all serial killers - murders and mutilates purely for the depraves satisfaction it gives him. Remove the "Oh but there must be so much more to it than that" presupposition, and we're left with another motiveless murderer.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

The problem I have with a great deal of the above, Mike, is that you appear to be using your assumption that the killer had interesting motives that elevated him to a status above that of a mere serial killer to bolster your argument for the exclusion of certain victims, and I feel that runs the risk of becoming circular reasoning.

If we examine the crime scene evidence from this and other cases, and disavow any preconceptions as to motive, then we're left with a very strong argument for a serial killer who - in keeping with practically all serial killers - murders and mutilates purely for the depraves satisfaction it gives him. Remove the "Oh but there must be so much more to it than that" presupposition, and we're left with another motiveless murderer.

Best regards,
Ben

Im sorry Ben, but saying a Unicorn is a horse doesnt make it correct, and if you want to use ideas that have evidence existing to support them, you can use attending medical opinions that the man who killed Polly wanted her abdominal organs but couldnt finish due to the location, he wanted Annies abdominal organs and thats the reason its suggested he kills her in the first place and in the yard this time, and Kates killer mutilates her abdomen just like the prior 2...only with more cutting and less overall timing.

Suggesting that these three murders have anything in common with the stabbing/robbery deaths isnt really sound analysis...its subjective analysis....born from an attitude that the man called Jack the Ripper might have killed with a screwdriver if he had thought of it...he just had to kill... in whatever form that murder happens to be committed in, stabbing, a single throat cut..Ive even read people suggest he is one of the gang that attacks Emma.

The only reason for those suggestions is that the author of them at the moment thinks he looking at a serial murderer using wide and varied formats. When its entirely possible and supportable by the extreme examples seen in Polly, Annie and Kate, that their killer had specific methods, specific goals and specific skills.

I wont break the horn off the Unicorn just because you or anyone else sees it as merely a work horse.

Some murders that year were remarkable...some were not.

You mentioned one trait of one murderer that year that was remarkable....a man that mutilates women postmortem out in public. Using that "fact" as your barometer, youre down to 4 Canonical victims, not up to 6 or more.

All the best Ben